Hon’ble J.J. Munir, J.—Heard Sri Baljor Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vishwa Jyoti Sahai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. This is a revision filed with a prayer to set aside an order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Baghpat dated 13th March, 2018 rejecting an application seeking discharge in S.T. No. 386 of 2013 (State v. Baljor and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2013, under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Chhaprauli, District Baghpat.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the case against him is based on the veracity of the ransom note in question. He submits that the ransom note has not been written by him. It is submitted that without seeking permission of the Court, the ransom note in question was sent by the prosecution for analysis to a private handwriting expert, who opined that it was in the handwriting of the revisionist. Thereafter on objection by the revisionist, the ransom note was sent for analysis to the Sate Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra, which categorically opined that the same was not in the handwriting of the revisionist. On a further objection of the prosecution, the ransom note was sent for analysis to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, which also opined that the ransom note was not in the handwriting of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that once two State Forensic Science Laboratories have opined that the ransom note was not written in the revisionist’s hand, there is no case against him worth trial and it is a case where the charge against him is groundless within the meaning of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, therefore, should have been discharged by the trial Court in exercise of powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the trial Court has not done. The impugned order is, therefore, manifestly illegal. He further submits that initial reference to the private handwriting expert by the prosecution on the basis of which the revisionist has been charge-sheeted, is without permission of the Magistrate as required under Section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the motion for admission of this revision.

5. The first submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist to the effect that looking to the fact that two State Forensic Science Laboratories have opined that the ransom note in question was not in the handwriting of the revisionist, the trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in not discharging him, in the opinion of the Court, is not tenable. It is well known that opinion of an expert is not substantive evidence. It is but expert evidence, which the Court is not bound to accept. Expert evidence is to be analyzed alongwith other evidence on record that is of a substantive character. Moreover, it is also well known that the Court is expert of experts and no expert evidence can tie down the hands of the Court. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist on this score is not acceptable.

6. The other submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist that permission under Section 311 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure not being secured to give specimen signatures or the specimen of handwriting by the Investigating Officer would vitiate the opinion of the private handwriting expert, also does not hold substance in the opinion of this Court.

7. For facility of reference, the provisions of Section 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure are quoted herein below:

“311A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting.—If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting