Mr. Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.: - Prayer in this criminal revision petition is for setting aside the judgment dated 07.09.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Jalandhar, to the extent that the case was wrongly remanded to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar, to examine the handwriting expert and to decide the matter afresh.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.07.2000, Subash Chander-complainant got recorded his statement before ASI Kulwant Singh to the effect that his father used to go to abroad in connection with business. A few letters were received in the name of his father on 26.06.2000; 02.07.2000; 05.07.2000 and 08.07.2000 and Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively were demanded. It is written in the letters that the money be kept near Parchin Shiv Mandir, Dhobi Ghat, and if the money was not given, both the children will be killed alike the children of Kamal. The letters were written in Hindi. He further stated that on receipt of the letters, he along with his father and uncle, Gopal Krishan, made inquiry and they were very sure that these letters had been written by Sunil Kumar son of Murlidharan Pandit, priest of the Hanuman Mandir, Maqdumpura. He further stated that a letter of the same nature was also received by Vinod Bhalla, the owner of King Hotel. After recording statement of the complainant, a ruqa was sent to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of which, the formal FIR was recorded. Investigation was carried out. Accused was arrested and after completion of necessary formalities of investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the learned Illaqa Magistrate.

3. In order to prove its case against the accused before the learned trial court, the prosecution had examined the following witnesses:-

PW-1Om Parkash

PW-2Subash Chander

PW-3Gopal Krishan

PW-4Satpal

PW-5Ashrafi Lal

PW-6Raman Negi

PW-7Kulwant Singh

4. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the petitioner-accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C.

5. In his defence, the accused (petitioner) examined DW-1- Mul Chand.

6. The learned trial court after appreciation of the law and the evidence brought on record, convicted the accused (petitioner) for the offence punishable under Section 387, IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

7. The petitioner challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Jalandhar, who vide order dated 07.09.2011 set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court and remitted the matter to the learned trial court by holding as under:-

“13. That main contention of learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, is not admissible in evidence as no opportunity of cross-examination has been given to the accused and in support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant/accused has relied upon the case law cited as Ayyub Ali vs. State of Madhaya Pradesh, 2008 Criminal Law Journal, 2216, wherein it has been held in para No.7 that it is well settled legal proposition that the mere exhibition of handwriting expert report is not sufficient to consider it in evidence unless the expert is examined in Court and an opportunity of crossexamination is given to the defence. Provision of Section 293 of the Cr.P.C is not applicable for handwriting expert report. The handwriting expert is falling under this provision, therefore, the examination of handwriting expert was must.

14 Even our own Hon’ble High Court in Nirmal vs. State of Punjab, 2001(4) RCR(Criminal)622, has held that the report of handwriting expert, even if it has been given by the expert working in the Forensic Sc