Judgment : During the stage of defence evidence in a criminal trial, the accused filed an application in the trial court praying for forwarding a document to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its expert opinion on a certain aspect. But the trial court dismissed the application by the impugned order. The accused has, therefore, filed this petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) for quashing the order. 2. Prosecution proceedings against the petitioner/ accused were initiated when the Registrar of the High Court filed a complaint against him in the court of Chief Judicial magistrate alleging that the accused produced before the High Court a forged document purporting to be a bank guarantee. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged and the trial proceeded against the petitioner upto defence evidence stage. Petitioner then filed an application in the trial court praying that the questioned document (which has been marked as Ex.P-10 in the trial court) may be forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with another document (which is said to be the verification report submitted to the same bank) for ascertaining whether both documents were type-written on the same typewriter. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while dismissing the application, has stated as follows: “The company may manufacture more than one typewriter having identical letters. The similarity of the letters by itself is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that it was typed in the very same typewriter. As contended by learned Public Prosecutor no useful purpose will be served by sending these two documents, I do not find any reason to allow the request of the petitioner”. 3. On the facts, I have no reason to take a different view since the expert opinion (sought to be elicited from the scientist) can, at the most, be that both documents could have been typewritten on similar or identical typewriting machines. More than that cannot be reported by the scientist because the type-Writer on which the questioned document was type-written is not available with the Forensic Science Laboratory. Even if the laboratory would report that both documents could have been typewritten on identical machines what is the use of such a report for the accused has not been explained by the petitioner. Prosecution has an allegation that this is tactic adopted by the petitioner for protraction. 4. Even if the laboratory would report that both documents could have been typewritten on identical machines what is the use of such a report for the accused has not been explained by the petitioner. Prosecution has an allegation that this is tactic adopted by the petitioner for protraction. 4. That apart, it is doubtful whether any expert opinion on typewritten scripts is admissible in evidence. Sec.45 of the Evidence Act which deals with opinion of expert says that “when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point, of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art or in questions of identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts”. In Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952)2M.L.J. 63.1952 S.C.J. 50.1952 S.C.R. 109: 1953 M.W.N. 34: A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 343: 54 Crl.L.J. 12, a bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court (Mahajan, S.R.Das and Bhagavathi, J.J.) has stated that the opinion of expert that a particular letter was typed on a particular machine does not fall within the ambit of Sec.45 of the Evidence Act and is inadmissible. Of course, in State v. Chowdhari, (1990) 2 S.C.C. 481 , a Bench of two Judges of the Supreme Court (S.R. Pandyan and Jayachandra Reddy, J.J.) expressed an opinion that the ratio laid down in Hanumant’s case has to be examined by a larger bench due to the fact that "by march of time, there is rapid development in the field of Forensic Science and therefore, it has become imperative to match the said march of modern vistas of scientific knowledge, the question whether the opinion of an expert in regard to a typescript would fall within the ambit of Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act has to be decided". Nonetheless, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hanumant’s case remains unaltered even now. The legal position as on today is that "the expert opinion regarding typewritten matters is not relevant under the Evidence Act. I am unaware whether any other statute has made it relevant. 5. Nonetheless, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hanumant’s case remains unaltered even now. The legal position as on today is that "the expert opinion regarding typewritten matters is not relevant under the Evidence Act. I am unaware whether any other statute has made it relevant. 5. Be that as it may, the more important question in this criminal miscellaneous case is whether an accused can, at the stage of defence evidence, seek the court’s help to have any document examined in the Forensic Science Laboratory. Such examination belongs to the realm of investigation. Perhaps such examination can be brought under enquiry. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that if the said course gains approval trial in many cases could be stalled by the defence by resorting to it, or at least the trial would remain in animated suspense for a long time since the Forensic Science Laboratory would normally take a long time to send its report. He pointed out that even prosecution cannot be permitted to report to such investigative process when once the trial started in the case. 6. The procedure prescribed in Chapter XIX of the Code for trial of warrant cases instituted on police report is the procedure to be followed in this case since as per Sec.313 of the Code, the magistrate to whom a complaint is made under Sec.340 or 341 shall deal with it as if it were instituted on a police report Under the said Chapter , the magistrate has to take all evidence for prosecution as enjoined by Sec.252. When the case reaches next stage, the magistrate has to call upon the accused to enter on his defence as provided in Sec.243. If the Accused applies the Magistrate has to issue process for compelling the attendance of any witness or production of any document or thing for defence evidence. 7. It is not provided anywhere in Chapter XIX of the Code that the accused can apply for sending any document or article for expert examination at the stage when he is called upon to enter on his defence. Even under Chapter XXI of the Code which deals with "general provisions as to enquiries or trial" no provision enabling; the court to make such investigation is envisaged. At the same time there is no restriction for the accused obtaining any expert opinion for the purpose of bringing in evidence. Even under Chapter XXI of the Code which deals with "general provisions as to enquiries or trial" no provision enabling; the court to make such investigation is envisaged. At the same time there is no restriction for the accused obtaining any expert opinion for the purpose of bringing in evidence. If he succeeds in securing a favourable opinion from any expert on any matter relevant for his defence, he can certainly request the court to summon him. But that aspect is qualitatively different from seeking the help of the court, during defence evidence stage, to conduct investigation to ascertain as to what the expert would say on such matter. 8. True, there are some provisions in certain special enactments which enable the accused to conduct a super test on the expert opinion which prosecution relies on. Those are cases in which the report of a scientific analysis or chemical examination is the basis for any prosecution proceeding, e.g. Sec.l3(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Sec.25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. It has to be remembered that no such special procedure is prescribed in the Code. 9. Here the accused has not decided whether he should adduce any expert opinion as his evidence. He has to consider, after he gets the expert opinion, whether it is in his favour or not and then decide whether the opinion should be brought in as evidence. If such opinion happens to be adverse to him he would sidestep it and he would not even bring it in his evidence. Thus what he now wants is the help of the court to conduct investigation. Such a course is impermissible either under Chapter XIX or XXI of the Code. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not, therefore, acted in violation of law by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, I dismiss this criminal miscellaneous case in limine.