2001 Supreme(HP) 112

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
KAMLESH SHARMA,M.R.VERMA,K.C.SOOD
GAJANAND ALIAS RAJINDER PRASHAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 144 of 1998, 202 of 1998, 303 of 1998
Decided On : 06/07/2001

The entire document is made admissible in evidence without its formal proof.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL APPEAL - SUBJECT - REPORT OF CHEMICAL EXAMINER - ACT/SECTION - SECTION 293 CRPC - SUMMARY - The document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government Scientific Expert to whom Section 293 Cr.P.C. applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report. The entire document is made admissible in evidence without its formal proof. In the instant case, the document in question, on the face of it, consists of two parts. The first part is signed by Anil Kumar Srivastava, Jr. Scientific Officer and the second part is signed by Mrs. Asha Dhir, Assistant Director (Ball.) The first part as per serial No. 1 thereof, is mentioned as "Report No. 1318/96-139/97 TOX. No. 351/96 dated 27.2.1997". The second part of the report is termed as "Endst. No. CFSL/825, dated 27.2.1997." The first part contains the particulars regarding reference, subject, receipt, description of the case property, purpose of receipt, result of examination and the name, designation and signatures of the examiner. The second part contains the contents of the first part forwarded to the sender of the article along with sealed remnants of the exhibit (the article) which stood sealed after the examination vide note appended to the first part. The question arises whether the contents of the documents as a whole can be said a document purporting to be a report under the hand of Mrs. Asha Dhir, the Assistant Director (Ball.) and thus per se admissible in evidence under Section 293 of the Code. The Court held that the entire document Exhibit PA, including the endorsement of the Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh is admissible in evidence without its formal proof.

Fact of the Case:

The reference, we are obliged to answer in these three Criminal Appeals (Criminal Appeals No* 144, 202 and 303 of 1998), is as under: Whether the document purported to be a report of the Chemical Examiner is only the result of examination signed by Shri A.K. Shrivastava, Junior Scientific Officer or it is the complete document including the result of examination, which is signed at the end, below the endorsement by the Assistant Director, one of the Government Scientific Experts?

Finding of the Court:

The question before the learned Judges in State of Punjab v. Nachhattar Singh, was whether the result of the examination or analysis or the matter or thing is per se admissible or incidental intimation noted or endorsed in the document purported to be report. It was held by the learned Judges in para 5 of the judgment that : ".....The use of the word document can lead to this inference that not only the opinion of the Chemical Examiner but all that is stated in the report becomes admissible without formal proof. If this were not so, such practical difficulties would arise as would render the examination of the Chemical Examiner or somebody from his office a dire necessity, and not only the position of the seal but even reference numbers of the communications received from the police would have to be proved by examining some witness so as to connect the material examined with the one sent for examination....."

Issues: Whether the document purported to be a report of the Chemical Examiner is only the result of examination signed by Shri A.K. Shrivastava, Junior Scientific Officer or it is the complete document including the result of examination, which is signed at the end, below the endorsement by the Assistant Director, one of the Government Scientific Experts?

Ratio Decidendi: The document in question, on the face of it, consists of two parts. The first part is signed by Anil Kumar Srivastava, Jr. Scientific Officer and the second part is signed by Mrs. Asha Dhir, Assistant Director (Ball.) The first part as per serial No. 1 thereof, is mentioned as "Report No. 1318/96-139/97 TOX. No. 351/96 dated 27.2.1997". The second part of the report is termed as "Endst. No. CFSL/825, dated 27.2.1997." The first part contains the particulars regarding reference, subject, receipt, description of the case property, purpose of receipt, result of examination and the name, designation and signatures of the examiner. The second part contains the contents of the first part forwarded to the sender of the article along with sealed remnants of the exhibit (the article) which stood sealed after the examination vide note appended to the first part. The question arises whether the contents of the documents as a whole can be said a document purporting to be a report under the hand of Mrs. Asha Dhir, the Assistant Director (Ball.) and thus per se admissible in evidence under Section 293 of the Code.

Final Decision: The reference is answered as under : The document purporting to be the report is the complete document including the result of examination signed at the end below the endorsement by the Assistant Director one of the Government Scientific Experts.