Back
2021 Supreme(Del) 1144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J.
Shri. Chand & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation & Ors. - Respondents
Crl.M.C. 1721 of 2021 and Crl.M.A. 11963 of 2021
Decided On : 23-08-2021
Mr. Mohinder Nath Dudeja, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Anupam S Sharrma, SPP with Mr. Prakarsh Airan, and Ms. Harpreet Kalsi, Advocates, for the Respondent.
The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C should be exercised with care and caution, and not as a tool to procrastinate the trial.
Headnote:
Handwriting Expert - Criminal Procedure - Indian Penal Code, Section 120B, 420, 511, 468, 471; Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) - The court discussed the application of Section 311 Cr.P.C for engaging a handwriting expert, the evidentiary value of expert opinion, and the limitations of the court's power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The court also highlighted the procedure prescribed in the Prevention of Corruption Act and emphasized the need for exercising the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C with care and caution.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to engage a handwriting expert under Section 311 Cr.P.C after the prosecution had concluded its evidence. The application was rejected by the Trial Court, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the application to engage a handwriting expert was a ruse to prolong the trial and that the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C should be exercised with care and caution, without being used as a tool to procrastinate the trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the application of Section 311 Cr.P.C, the evidentiary value of expert opinion, and the procedural requirements under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for exercising the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C with care and caution, and highlighted the limitations of the court's power under this section.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the impugned order of the Trial Court was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is directed against the order dated 22.02.2021, passed by Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue Courts, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 311 Cr.P.C, seeking permission to engage a handwriting expert.
2. Material on record discloses that on the directions of this Court, FIR No. RC NO-DST/2005/S-010 dated 14.12.2005 was registered at Police Station CBI/STF/NEW DELHI for offences under Section 120B, 420, 511, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") read with Section 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act") against seven accused in relation to reviving Narmad Cooperative Group Housing Society on the basis of forged and fabricated documents with the object to get land allotted in the name of the society by the DDA at reserve price which is at 1/6th or 1/7th of the market rate causing wrongful gains to the accused and corresponding loss to the DDA.
3. The charge sheet was filed on 29.11.2006 and charges were framed on 18.02.2011. The trial has begun. The prosecution has concluded its evidence. When final arguments were to commence, the petitioner filed an application for engaging a hand-writing expert for an opinion in supplement to the opinion rendered by the handwriting expert appointed by the Government. The said application was rejected by the impugned Order dated 22.02.2021 stating that the handwriting expert has given his report. He has been examined and cross-examined by the Petitioner herein. It has also been noted in the impugned Order that there is no allegation against the government expert with respect to his impartiality.
4. Heard Mr. M.N. Dudeja, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Anupam S. Sharrma, learned SPP for the State and perused the material on record.
5. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Section 311 Cr.P.C confers a wide discretionary power on the Court and that these powers of the Court do not impose a limit when it concerns to serving the cause of justice. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further relied on V.N Patil v. K. Niranjan Kumar, (2021) 3 SCC 661, to submit that the aim of every Court is to unearth the truth and that Section 311 Cr.P.C vests a discretionary power in the Court to utilize the same.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the government hand-writing expert has been provided the documents in the form of photocopies as the original documents had not been placed on record by the prosecution. Submitting that the evidentiary value of expert opinion with regard to hand-writing is inconclusive, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on Fakhruddin v. State of MP, AIR 1967 SC 1326 and Padum Kumar v. State of U.P., (2020) 3 SCC 25, to state that conviction cannot solely be based on the evidence of a hand-writing expert and that it must be corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial.
7. Per contra, Mr. Anupam S. Sharrma, learned SPP appearing for CBI, contends that this application is an abuse of the process of law and is a mere ruse to delay the trial. He further states that the FIR was registered on 14.12.2005, charge-sheet was filed on 29.11.2006, charges were framed on 18.02.2011 and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C was filed after the prosecution had ended its examination and the petitioner had been given an opportunity to lead defence. He states that the Trial Court has correctly observed that when the documents have already been examined by the Government appointed expert and when there is no allegation against the said government body with respect to their impartiality, then there is no necessity of getting the documents examined by a private expert. He further states that Section 22 of the PC Act provides for a limited application of the Cr.P.C. He places reliance on Section 22(a) of the PC Act whi
