In the absence of a specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial court cannot order the re-examination of articles seized during the investigation by another Forensic Science Laboratory.

Harmohinder Kaur Sadhu, J.

1. Petitioner Dalip Singh is facing trial in a case F.I.R. No. 196 dated 23.12.1991 under Sections 307/324/325/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Siwani alongwith 13 other coaccused. During the investigation of this case the police had taken into possession empty cartridges and 12 bore DBBL gun. These articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana Madhuban Karnal. As per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory the gun was a fire arm and its left firing pin was broken. Empty cartridges C-1 to C-10 and one misfired cartridge C-11 were not found to have been fired or misfired from the gun in question but all the empty cartridges except one were fired from the same fire arm. On receipt of this report, application copy of which is Annexure P.2 was submitted by one Jagdish Rai with a prayer that clothes of Mohinder Singh injured and weapons recovered should be sent for Expert opinion to Forensic Science Laboratory of any other State. It was alleged that the report submitted by Forensic Science Laboratory Madhuban Karnal was not correct and it was procured by brother-in-law of Dalip Singh one of the accused who was posted as District Attorney Karnal. The report was procured by the District Attorney by misusing his office as was proved by a letter written by him on 15.2.1993.

2. The application submitted by Jagdish Rai was opposed by the petitioner and other accused who alleged that veracity of the report could be tested by subjecting the reporting official to cross-examination.

3. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial court found that summoning of the reporting official will not serve any useful purpose as State would not be able to cross-examine its own witness. It was further observed that the court could pass any order to dispense justice in a fair manner. So keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the application filed by the complainant was allowed and it was ordered that the articles in question be sent for examination by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory.

4. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the above mentioned order dated 20.5.93 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hissar copy of which is Annexure P-3.

5. The petitioner alleged that the case against him and the other accused was the result of acute political rivalry and as many as 14 persons had been involved including a Headmaster, a teacher in Government service, Research Scholar etc. The official acts are presumed to be done in accordance with Rules and Regulations and the report in question was prepared by a Senior Scientific Officer. The impugned order amounted to outright rejection of the report without rhyme and reason on the vague suspicion that a third person had mentioned the report in a letter subsequently written by him. The implied rejection of the report caused a serious prejudice to the petitioner. The Investigating Agency which is the absolute authority in the domain of the investigation has been bye-passed in gross violation of the law. Moreover, re-examination by another Laboratory can be ordered if there is clear cut provision for the same in the relevant Statute.

6. In the return filed by the respondent, the averments made in the petition were denied and it was maintained that the trial court was well within its rights to pass an order, which enabled it to dispense justice in a fair manner and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and his co-accused.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that there was no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure under which the articles seized during the investigation of a case could be ordered to be examined by another Forensic Science Laboratory as the investigation of an offence was the filed exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department,