Hon’ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State as also the DGC (Criminal), Allahabad summoned by the Court vide order 23.5.2013.

2. This revision challenges the order dated 13.3.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Allahabad in S. T. No. 73 of 2009 State v. Anand Pasi and others, under Section 302 IPC P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad whereby after closure of arguments of the defence, allowing the application of the prosecution permission has been accorded to put the DNA report paper No. 32-A/2 to 32-A/10 to the revisionist in his additional statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C.

3. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the DNA report could not be admitted in evidence without its formal proof as required under the law unless it is demonstrated that the same could be considered in view of Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P. C., therefore, the accused cannot be put to explain the same.

4. On perusal of the affidavits filed on behalf of the revisionist it appears that the revisionist is facing trial under Section 302 IPC before t