JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Suraj Verma, learned Spl. P.P. for the opposite party-State.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by learned District Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, (A.C.B.), Dhanbad in Special Case No.15 of 2012, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.15 of 2012, whereby, the learned court without giving opportunity to cross examine the expert exhibited the report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jharkhand, Ranchi and allowed the petition dated 20.03.2020 under Section 293 of the Cr.P.C.

4. The case of the prosecution is that one Sanjay Kumar Singh had complained to the S.P. Vigilance, Ranchi stating therein that he is having land in the name of his grandmother in Rangamati, Police Station Baliapur, District-Dhanbad. After selling 20-25 decimals of land, he went to the Circle Office for giving rent of remaining land, which was due since last 18 years and meet with the Halka Karamchari, then Halka Karamchari had given advise to go and file an application before the Circle Officer, thereafter, the Circle Officer sent application to Halka Karamchari (petitioner). Again complainant visited the office of Halka Karamchari, who demanded Rs.15,000/- from the complainant. The complainant made request that he is not able to pay such huge amount. The complainant, namely, Sanjay Kumar Singh had complained to the S.P. Vigilance, Ranchi. After receiving the aforesaid complaint, the Police Inspector for verification went along with complainant to the Revenue Office of Shitalpur on 07.07.2012 by hiding his identity and again in front of Police Inspector, the petitioner demanded Rs.15,000/- from the complainant and thereafter the First Informant Report was lodged.

5. Mr. Dilip Kumar Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent. The petitioner was working as Halka Karamchari in the Revenue Office at Shitalpur. He further submitted that on 23.01.2019, a petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the prosecution for examination of Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B., namely, Nawal Kishore Prasad, which has been allowed vide order dated 22.11.2019. The argument in the case was already completed on 02.03.2020 and the case is fixed for pronouncement of judgment. Mr. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that charge-sheet was submitted on 08.09.2012 without report of chemical examination of Forensic Science Laboratory, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The prosecution has filed a petition on 20.03.2020 under Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. to mark exhibit of result of chemical examination of Forensic Science Laboratory, Jharkhand, Ranchi, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 without giving any opportunity of defence to the petitioner. Mr. Chakraverty, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Sub-section (3) of Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted that in view of this provision, the petitioner was required to be provided an opportunity of cross examination, which has not been allowed and for that the petitioner has been prejudiced. He further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Dutt v. State of Haryana, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 286 and submitted that this case is also arising out of the same section and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed to allow the accused to cross-examine the expert.

6. Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:

“16. We are afraid that we cannot concur with the views either of the trial