Trial courts cannot deny an accused the right to call and examine expert witnesses regarding disputed scientific reports. While expeditious disposal of cases is desirable, it must not override the fundamental right of an accused to lead a proper defense and test the veracity of evidence.

ORDER :

AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH, J.

Heard on admission.

2. The revision is admitted for final hearing.

3. Learned Government Advocate submits that victim is served.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, revision is heard finally.

5. This revision is filed being aggrieved of the order dated 28/08/2024 and 03/09/2024 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act) Sirmour District Rewa in Special Case No.64/2020 whereby an application filed by the applicant under Section 91 & 233 of Cr.P.C. for calling the defence witnesses was dismissed and the case was fixed for final arguments.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that learned trial Court vide order dated 03/09/2024, which was the second application filed basically for the same purpose under Sections 256 & 94 of BNSS has been dismissed and referred to the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court passed in Criminal Reference No.06/2022 (In reference vs. Anokhilal) and other connected matter dated 11/09/2023, in which the Hon'ble Division Bench remanded the case for recording the statement. The basic contention of learned trial Court was that why application was not made earlier ? and under Section 293 of Cr.P.C., the report of Forensic Expert is admissible without formal proof.

7. In both the orders, it has been mentioned that this case is under the category of the oldest 100 cases and direction have been made by the Hon'ble High Court to dispose the cases within 6 months, but no specific direction particular in this case has been mentioned in the impugned order, meaning thereby, it was a general direction which is meant to be referred for disposal of the cases specially in the POCSO cases, where the time limit is fixed for disposal.

8. Learned Government Advocate supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the revision.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Section 293 of Cr.P.C. is reads as under :-

"293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts - (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.

(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.

(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend personally, he may unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf.

(4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely; (a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government; (b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives; (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau; (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay; (e) the Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State forensic Science Laboratory; (f) the Serologist to the Government. (g) any other Government scientific Expert specified by notification by the Central Government for this purpose."

11. In Criminal Reference No.06 of 2022 (In Reference vs. Anokhilal), the Hon'ble Division Bench when an objection was raised regarding DNA report, accepted the objection and directed thus :-

"22. Hence, for all these reasons, the application (I.A. No.6640