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 the trial Court and after closure of arguments on behalf of the defence, 13.3.2013 was fixed for reply by the prosecution in the case. Instead of making submissions on 13.3.2013, an application was filed by the complainant of the case duly submitted by the concerned ADGC (Criminal) stating that the report of DNA from Hyderabad had been received and is placed on the record, which is admissible in evidence without its formal proof, so it should be read in evidence. On the same day this application was disposed of by the learned trial Court with the following order:

“Case called out. Accused are present from jail.

Today it is fixed for reply by learned counsel for prosecution.

In place of reply learned counsel for prosecution moved application that DNA report be read in evidence.

Heard learned counsel for accused and prosecution.

Learned counsel for accused submitted that application has been moved just delay and accused are in jail for more than 5 years.

Learned counsel for the prosecution submitted that DNA report is already on file, but no question under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been put to accused with regard to DNA.

Perusal shows that DNA report is papers No. 32-A/2 to 32-A/10 is already on file with Additional C.D. 32-A/1 with order dated 12.1.11 with order K.O.F.

Perusal of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. shows that by mistake or slip no question on DNA report has been put to accused.

Hence in the interest of justice it is necessary to put question on each and every evidence available on record to accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to enable accused to put the defence, if any.

Hence put up on 14.3.2013 for additional statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Application of the prosecution is accordingly disposed off.”

On 21.5.2013 when the revision came up before the Court as fresh following order was passed:

“Learned AGA is unable to show any Notification by the Central Government on the basis of which, DNA report submitted by CDFC can be admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C.

Let the District Government Counsel (DGC), Allahabad appear in person on the next date to apprise the Court with the appropriate Notification.

Put up this case on 4th July, 2013 as fresh.

In the meantime, the additional statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. shall not be recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Allahabad in S. T. No. 73 of 2009 on the basis of DNA report unless the DNA report is proved in accordance with law or it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court below on the basis of a Notification of the Central Government that DNA Report is admissible under Section 203 Cr.P.C. without formal proof.

A copy of this order be given to learned AGA within 3 days.”

5. On 11.7.2013 in compliance with the order of the Court dated 23.5.2013 Sri R. P.