ORDER

Paul, J. -- 1. This petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) takes exception to the order dated 24.8.2021 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act), Ujjain in Special Case No.4/2018 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is rejected by the Court below.

2. In nutshell, the case of the is that he is facing prosecution under sections 7, 13(1) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The case of the prosecution is that petitioner has received an illegal gratification for executing lease deed in favour of the complainant. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Manager of District Industries Centre at Ujjain where he was contacted by the complainant for execution of lease deed in his favour. During this process, the petitioner allegedly demanded an illegal gratification which resulted into a trap in which petitioner's hands, pocket and pant were washed in sodium earbonate solution which turned pink. Bottles in which washings were kept, were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rau, District – Indore for analysis.

3. In turn, Scientific Officer submitted the report which was filed before the Court below. During the trial, the defence counsel cross-examined the prosecution witnesses who entered the witness box. On the basis of deposition of prosecution witnesses, the petitioner noticed certain discrepancies and thought it proper to file an application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for calling the scientific expert for cross-examination. The said application dated 17.8.2021 was resisted by the prosecution. The Court below by impugned order dated 24.8.2021 disallowed the said application.

4. Shri Arvind Gokhale, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is in two parts, first part gives discretion to the Court to requisition / summon the witness for cross-examination or not whereas second part is couched in a mandatory language. To elaborate, it is submitted that a plain reading of second part of section 311 of the Cr.P.C. shows that when an application is filed with a submission that to meet the ends of justice, it is necessary to summon the witness, the Court has no option but to summon the relevant witness.

5. During the course of hearing, Shri Gokhale fairly submitted that as per section 293 of the Cr.P.C., the report of scientific expert is not required to be proved by bringing him in the witness box. However, in a case of this nature where the cross-examination of expert witness is necessary to putforth proper defence of the petitioner, the Court below should have summoned the said expert witness. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the judgments delivered in the cases of Shri Navin Laxman Tamboli v. The State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.4326/2021), Jaipaldas v. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2006 (II) MPWN 102 = 2006 (1) M.P.L.J. 560, C.P. Sahu v. The State of Madhya pradesh reported in 2005 (3) M.P.L.J. 401, Natashi Singh v. CBI (State) (Criminal Appeal No.709/2013), Rameshwar Dayal & Others v. State of UP reported in AIR 1978 SC 1558, P Sanjeeva Rao v. The State of AP (Criminal Appeal No. 874-875 of 2012) and Jamatraj v. The State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1968 SC 178.

6. The averments of application filed under section 311 of the Cr.P.C were relied upon to bolster the submission that the Court below has not taken into account the averments of paras No.2,3,6 and 7 of the said application. Unless expert/scientific expert is put to cross-examination by summoning him in exercise of power under section 311 of the Cr.P.C, the applicant will not be able to demolish the case of prosecution and putforth his defense in an effective manner.

7. Per contra, Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and contended that the Court below has rightly rejected the said application. The petitioner's application was in fact a