Back
1994 Supreme(Del) 623
High Court Of Delhi
HIGH COURT OF DELHI NIZAMUDDIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 82 of 1990
Decided On : 09/14/1994
ARUN KAPIL, HIRDAY JOT SINGH, SANJIV KUMAR
A report of a Government scientific expert is admissible in evidence only if the expert is covered by Section 293(4)(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:
NDPS ACT - SECTION 293 CRPC - REPORT OF SCIENTIFIC EXPERT - ADMISSIBILITY - REPORT OF SCIENTIFIC EXPERT NOT COVERED UNDER SECTION 293(4)(E) CRPC IS INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE UNLESS THE EXPERT IS EXAMINED IN COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for possessing 5 kgs of charas. The prosecution relied on the CFSL report to prove that the substance recovered was charas. However, the report was given by Mr. C. L. Bansal, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Chemistry), Central Forensic Science Laboratory, CBI, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, who is not an officer covered by Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the report submitted by Mr. Bansal was inadmissible in evidence since he was not examined in court. The court also held that the prosecution failed to establish that the substance recovered from the accused was charas.
Issues: Whether the CFSL report given by Mr. C. L. Bansal, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Chemistry), Central Forensic Science Laboratory, CBI, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, is admissible in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the report of a Government scientific expert is admissible in evidence if the expert is covered by Section 293(4)(e) of the Code. Mr. Bansal is not covered by Section 293(4)(e) of the Code and therefore his report is inadmissible in evidence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and order of the trial court and acquitted the appellant.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of Mr. S. L. Khanna, Additional Sessions Judge dated 3rd May, 1990. By which the appellant was convicted under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and was sentenced to 10 years rigrous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 (0ne lakh ). In default of payment of fine, the accused was further directed to undergo rigrous imprisonment for the period of two years.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recaptulated as under:
( 3 ) THE Inspector S. P. Singh received information that one Nizamuddin R/o Govind Puri, Kalkaji, New Delhi was dealing in Charas. Inspector S. P. Singh, deputed the informer and one official of the Crime Branch to Verify the information. On 19th December, 1987 at about 7:30 p. m. , Inspector S. P. Singh received a secret information at the office of Crime Branch that Nizamuddin, appellant would supply charas to some body at 10:00 p. m. at Govind Puri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Inspector S. P. Singh conveyed his information to Sub Inspector Om Prakash Public Witness 8 who recorded the information in the daily diary register and constituted a raiding party under the supervision of Inspector S. P. Singh. The raiding party comprising of S. P. Singh Public Witness 6, Sub Inspector Om Praksh Public Witness 8 and Sub Inspector Harcharan Verma, constables Brahma Nand, Devi Charan and constable Risal Singh started from the office of Crime Branch and reached at the spot at 9:30 p. m. On request the Sub Inspector Om Prakash was able to persuade the Scooter Driver Shri Laxmi Chand Public Witness 3 to join the raiding party. The members of the raiding party held naqabandi near Gali No. 2, Govind Puri at about 9:45 p. m. At 10:15 p. m. accused Nizamuddin entered the gali and on the pointing out of the informer, he was apprehended. The accused was carrying a bag in his right hand and on search he was found to. carry 5 kgs. of charas. 100 grams of charas was taken out as sample and was converted into a parcel of cloth with the seal of O. P. The remaining charas was sealed in a separate parcel and the same seal was used on it. CFSL form was filled up by S. I. Om Prakash who affixed the specimen of seal of O. P. on the said form. The case property including the sample parcel was taken into possession vide memo Exhibit Public Witness 3/a which was attested by Laxmi Chand Public Witness 3 and Inspector S. P. Singh Public Witness 6. Thereafter, Sub Inspector Om Prakash sent ruqqa exhibit Public Witness 7/a to police Station Kalkaji through constable Brahma Nand Public Witness 5. He was handed over the case property and the CFSL form with he instruction that he should produce the case property and CFSL form before the Station House Officer and all other necessary formalities were completed.
( 4 ) ON receipt of the CFSL report which disclosed that the sample gave positive test for charas, the appellant was charge sheeted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. On the basis of evidence of eight prosecution witnesses and documents on record, the appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 20 (part II) of the Act and was convicted accordingly. The appellant aggrieved by the order filed this appeal before this Court.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of CFSL report given by Mr. C. L. Bansal, Sr. Scientific Assistant (Chemistry), Central Forensic Science Laboratory, CBI, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
( 6 ) IT was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Mr. Bansal is not an officer covered by Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The report submitted by him is not admissible in evidence, in absence of the aforesaid officer being examined.
( 7 ) THE submission of the learned counsel is that under Section 293 (4) (e) of the Code, the officials named are the Director, Deputy Director, and Assistant Director of the Central Fo
