IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2302 OF 2005

DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 21, 2007

Kuldip Singh.

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

Malik Singh Cheema

....Respondent

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2303 OF 2005

Kuldip Singh.

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

Lehmber Singh

....Respondent

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2304 OF 2005

Kuldip Singh.

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

Pal Singh

....Respondent

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRESENT:

Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

******

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2302 OF 2005 :{ 2 }:

RANJIT SINGH, J.

These three revisions are directed against the order of

acquittal of three respondents, namely, Malik Singh Cheema,

Lehmber Singh and Pal Singh passed by the Appellate Court. These

three respondents were tried for offences under Sections 465, 466,

468, 471, 120-B IPC by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur. Upon

conviction, they were sentenced to suffer RI for one year under each

of the offence alleged against them. They, however, succeeded in

their appeal filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar,

which is now impugned through these three separate revision

petitions, which are being disposed of by this common order.

Mr.Anupam Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, by referring to the trial Court judgment would say that the

said Court was justified in relying upon a report, Ex.PH, given by a

Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, which, in

terms of Section 293 Cr.P.C., was rightly held admissible per-se by

the trial Court. The Appellate Court, however, found that report of an

hand-writing expert, even if given by officer of the Forensic Science

Laboratory, would not be per-se admissible and hence, would not be

of any help to the prosecution as was held by the trial Court. This

finding of the Appellate Court is seriously challenged by the counsel

for the petitioner. The counsel submits that this aspect would require

consideration. Learned counsel also did make an attempt to draw my

attention to the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses but he

gave up this aspect and did not dispute the fact that re-appreciation

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.2302 OF 2005 :{ 3 }:

of evidence may not fall within the scope of the revisional jurisdiction.

He accordingly confined his submission to the sole ground relating to

admissibility of Ex.PH, which is the report of hand-writing expert

prepared by the Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory.

Reference to Section 293 Cr.P.C. would show that certain

types of reports given by officers working at Forensic Science

Laboratory are per-se admissible. Section 293 (4) says that 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;

© the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;

(d)the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;

(e) the Director, [Deputy Director or Assistant Director]

of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State

Forensic Science Laboratory;

(f) the Serologist to the Government.

Thus, the Court can accept documents issued by the

above-noted six officers, who are mentioned in this Section as a

valid evidence without examining the author. Any document

purported to be a report under the hand of these officers as such

may be used as evidence in any trial or proceedings, without

summoning the said officer as a witness, unless the Court has

expressly directed him to appear personally. Sub-Section (2) of

Section 293 Cr.P.C. also says that the Court may, if it thinks fit,

CRIMINAL REVISION NO.