JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The reference, we are obliged to answer in these three Criminal Appeals (Criminal Appeals No* 144, 202 and 303 of 1998), is as under:— Whether the document purported to be a report of the Chemical Examiner is only the result of examination signed by Shri A.K. Shrivastava, Junior Scientific Officer or it is the complete document including the result of examination, which is signed at the end, below the endorsement by the Assistant Director, one of the Government Scientific Experts? 2. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Advocate General we will advert to the report of the Chemical Examiner in Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1998, which is identical in other appeals. It is:— "CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY (Bureau of Police Research and Development, Min. of Home Affairs, Government of India) CHANDIGARH. (Admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. 1973) 1. Report No. 1318/96-1139/97 (TOX. No. 351/96 dated 27.2.1997. 2. Reference No. 5618/5A dated 29.12.1996 From : SHO PS Sadar Mandi. 3. Subject : FIR No. 523/36 dated 29.12.1996 PS. Sadar Mandi H.P. under Section 20 NDP^ Act. 4. Date of Receipt : 5. Mode of Receipt : Through Const. Karam Singh No. 498/HR 6. Articles Received : One sealed parcel. The seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seals as per forwarding authorities letter. Parcel No. of seals Description 1 & impression Dark green colour solid mass in stick form 3-A (App. Wt 13.52 gms). 7. Purpose of reference: For chemical analysis and report. RESULT OF EXAMINATION The contents of exhibit 1 was found to be Char as. Note: After the examination of remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seals of TOX, CSL, CHD. Examined by: Sd/- Anil Kumar Srivastava Jr. Scientific Officer, Central Forensic Science laboratory BPR&D, MHA, G.I., Sector 36-A, Chandigarh. Endst. No. CFSL/825 Dated 27.2.1997. Forwarded to the SHO, PS, Sadar, Mandi, H.P. alongwith the exhibits through Karam Singh No. 498/HP on 27.2.1997. Sd/- 27/2/1997 (Mrs. Asha Dhir) Asstt. Director (Ball) for DIRECTOR" 3. The above report can be divided in three parts. The first part contains columns 1 to 7 wherein besides the name of the Laboratory and the caption Admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. 1973, Report No. and date; Reference No. and date; Subject: Date of Receipt; Mode of receipt; Articles Received and Purpose of Reference are filled in. The above report can be divided in three parts. The first part contains columns 1 to 7 wherein besides the name of the Laboratory and the caption Admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. 1973, Report No. and date; Reference No. and date; Subject: Date of Receipt; Mode of receipt; Articles Received and Purpose of Reference are filled in. The second part of the report consists of Result of Examination and the Note that "After the examination of remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seals of TOX, CFSL, CHD". Below this the signatures and seal of Anil Kumar Srivastava, Jr. Scientific Officer of the Laboratory are appended, who had examined the material or thing submitted for examination. The third part of the report consists of the Endorsement No. and date, and the writing "Forwarded to the SHO, PS, Sadar Mandi, HP alongwith the exhibits through Karam Singh No. 498/HP on 27.2.1997. Down below the endorsement the Assistant Director (Ball.) Mrs. Asha Dhir has appended her signatures for Director and also date. 4. As per the reference the question arises whether either of these three parts of the document or whole of it is purporting to be a report under the hand of Government Scientific Expert to whom Section 293 Cr.P.C. applies. The list of Government Scientific Experts, to which Section 293 Cr.P.C. applies is given in its sub-section (4). However, we may reproduce/the whole of Section 293. It is:— I "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. (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 G6vernment; (b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives; (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau; (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay; (e) the Director (Deputy Director, Assistant Director) of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory; (f) The Serologist to the Government." 5. It is not in dispute that the opinion of an expert is a relevant fact as provided under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is admissible in evidence if it is proved on record by examining its author. But Section 293 Cr.P.C. is an exception which makes any document per se admissible if it is purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government Scientific Expert. Such Government Scientific Experts are named in sub-section (4) of Section 293 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, Junior Scientific Officer of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory is not named Government Scientific Expert, whereas, the Director or Assistant Director of Central Forensic Science Laboratory is one of such Government Scientific Experts. Therefore, if only second part of the document is purported to be the report, it is admittedly not under the hand of the Government Scientific Expert but if whole of the document is purported to be the report, it is definitely under the hand of the Government Scientific Expert. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants in these Criminal Appeals have urged that only the second part of the document is purported to be report and it is not-per sg admissible by virtue of Section 293 Cr.P.C. having been signed only by Junior Scientific Officer and not by Government Scientific Expert, namely, the Director, the Deputy Director or the Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory or State Forensic Science Laboratory. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has argued that the whole of the document is purported to be report, which is signed by Mrs. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has argued that the whole of the document is purported to be report, which is signed by Mrs. Asha Dhir, who was Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, at the end of the document, who is one of the Government Scientific Experts enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 293 Cr.P.C. 7. The order to resolve this controversy, we will first examine the meanings of the words document and purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert used in Section 293 Cr.P.C. So far as the word document is concerned, its meaning is given under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is:— "Document" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. Illustrations A writing is a document; Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents; A map or plan is a document; An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document; A caricature is a document." Similar meaning to the word document is given under clause (18) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act but by using the expression shall include the definition is further widened. As per Blacks Law Dictionary (sixth edition at page 481) the document is: "An instrument on which is recorded, by means of letters, figures, or marks, the original, official, or legal form of something, which may be evidentially used. In this sense the term "document" applies to writings; to words printed, lithographed, or photographed; to maps or plans; to seals, plates, or even stones on which inscriptions are cut or engraved. In the plural, the deeds, agreements, title-papers, letters, receipts, and other written instruments used to prove a fact. As used as a verb, to support with documentary evidence or authorities. Within meaning of the best evidence rule, document is any physical embodiment of information or ideas; e.g. a letter, a contract, a receipt, a book or account, a blueprint, or an X-ray plate." 8. As used as a verb, to support with documentary evidence or authorities. Within meaning of the best evidence rule, document is any physical embodiment of information or ideas; e.g. a letter, a contract, a receipt, a book or account, a blueprint, or an X-ray plate." 8. By applying either of the meanings of the word document as given in the Indian Evidence Act or the General Clauses Act or in Blacks Law Dictionary, the writing consisting all the three parts is a document but whether it is purported to be a report, will depend upon the meaning of the words purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert. The word purport when used as verb is given the following meaning as per Blacks Law Dictionary (sixth edition at page 1236):— "Purport, v. To convey, imply, or profess outwardly; to have the appearance of being, intending, claiming, etc." Whereas, the word purport used as noun is given the following meaning in the Blacks Law Dictionary:— "Purport, n. Meaning; import; substantial meaning; substance; legal effect. The "purport" of an instrument means the substance of it as it appears on the face of the instrument, and is distinguished from "tenor", which means an exact copy." In the Oxford Dictionary the meaning of the word purport when used as verb is:— "Profess; be intended to seem (purports to be the royal seal), (often foil, by that + Clause) (of a document or speech) have as its meaning; state." And when used as noun:— "the ostensible meaning of something; the sense or tenor (or a document or statement)." 9. The words purporting to be done are used in Section 80 CPC in the context that no suit shall be instituted against a public officer in respect of any act purporting to be done by such public officer in his official capacity, until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office. The words purporting to act have also been used in Section 197 Cr.P.C. in the context that when any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the authorities stated therein. 10. After considering their earlier judgments in P. Arulswami v. State of Madras, AIR 1967 SC 776 and S.B. Saha v. M.S. Kochar, AIR 1979 SC 1841, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao, (1993) 3 SCC 339, have interpreted the words purporting to act occurring in. sub-section (1) of Section 197 Cr.P.C. by observing that:— "It has been widened further by extending protection to even those acts or omissions which are done in purported exercise of official duty. That is under the colour of office. Official duty therefore implies that the act or omission must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and such act or omission must have been performed as part of duty which further must have been official in nature. The section has, thus, to be construed strictly, while determining its applicability to any act or omission in course of service. Its operation has to be limited to those duties which are discharged in course of duty. But once any act or omission has been found to have been committed by a public servant in discharge of his duty then it must be given liberal and wide construction so far its official nature is concerned. For instance a public servant is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities. To that extent the section has to be construed narrowly and in a restricted manner. But once it is established that act or omission was done by the public servant while discharging his duty then the scope of its being official should be construed so as to advance the objective of the section in favour of the public servant. Otherwise the entire purpose of affording protection to a public servant without sanction shall stand frustrated....." 11. Otherwise the entire purpose of affording protection to a public servant without sanction shall stand frustrated....." 11. In our opinion the interpretation of words purporting to be done used in Section 80 CPC and words purporting to act used in Section 197 Cr.P.C. as given in the above referred to judgment is not of much assistance, as we are dealing with the words document purporting to be a report for which the dictionary meanings, as quoted hereinabove, will be of some help. A document purporting to be a report need not contain complete report but only a substance of the examination or analysis of any matter or thing duly submitted to a Government Scientific Expert named in sub-section (4) of Section 293 Cr.P.C. 12. The words any document purporting to be a report/Vas envisaged under sub-section (1) of Section 293 Cr.P.C. further suggest that report need not contain the opinion of the Government Scientific Expert, which is relevant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and for which the examination of the Government Scientific Expert is necessary. 13. Now the question arises whether the substance of the result of actual examination or analysis which is given in the second part of the document in question, is only purported to be report? The answer is in negative as second part of the document cannot be read in isolation of the first and third part. The first part contains the necessary particulars of the case to which the matter or thing sent for examination or analysis pertains, in the absence of which the second part cannot be connected with the case. Similarly, without the third part, the second part will remain in the records of Government Scientific Expert and will not be conveyed to the quarter concerned. The examination or analysis of the matter or thing submitted to a named Government Scientific Expert may in fact be examined or analysed by any Scientist concerned in the laboratory but the substance of the result, which is purported to be report is to be conveyed by the Government Scientific Expert to whom the matter or thing has been submitted for examination or analysis, as it is the said authority which is entrusted with the responsibility to authenticate the substance of the result of the examination or analysis by putting his signatures thereon. Had the intention of the legislature been that the named Government Scientific Expert to whom the matter or thing is submitted for examination or analysis is to conduct the examination or analysis himself, it would not have used the words document purporting to be report under the hand of Government Scientific Expert, instead it would have used the words the report of examination or analysis of named Government Scientific Expert. By using the word purporting the intention of the legislature is made clear that examination or analysis may not be by the named Government Scientific Expert. 14. This intention is further corroborated by the words under the hand of Government Scientific Expert which means that the result of the examination or analysis may be conducted by any Scientist in the laboratory but its substance should be conveyed under the hand of named Government Scientific Expert whereby the report will become his responsibility. We have no hesitation to hold that by handing over the responsibility to an authority which is very high in the hierarchy of the laboratory, the legislature intended that before putting the signatures on the substance of the examination or analysis the named Government Scientific Expert would satisfy himself that what is being conveyed under his signatures was conducted properly as per the set norms and rules knowing well that by appending his signatures on the document purported to be the report, it becomes per se admissible. Otherwise, without the signatures of the named Government Scientific Expert the substance of the report of the examination or analysis is required to be proved in accordance with law by examining the Scientist as a witness who conducted the examination or analysis. 15. This view preferred by us finds further support from sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 293 Cr.P.C. which provide that the Court may summon and examine the Government Scientific Expert who has signed the document purporting to be a report if it thinks fit, who may depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court conversant with the facts of the case and who can satisfactorily depose in the Court on his behalf, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally. From this provision it is clear that the examination or analysis may not be conducted by the named Government Scientific Expert but he should be conversant with the facts of the case so that he may satisfactorily depose in the Court if expressly directed to appear personally. Knowing this provision of law the Government Scientific Expert would not append his signatures on the document purporting to be a report without knowing fully the facts pertaining to the case as well as of the examination and analysis of the matter or thing submitted to him so that if summoned in the Court personally he would be able to depose satisfactorily. In fact this provision indirectly puts check on the Government Scientific Expert that he may not put his signatures on the substance of examination or analysis without personally verifying that it has been conducted properly and in accordance with the set norms and principles. 16. Coming to the case in hand, the named Government Scientific Expert has not appended his signatures below the substance of the examination or analysis but below the endorsement whereby it is forwarded to the SHO concerned alongwith the exhibits. The question arises whether this makes any difference? According to the learned Counsel for the appellants the difference is so vital that it renders the document unfit to be per se admissible in evidence as envisaged under Section 293 Cr. RC. It is further urged by the learned Counsel that the signatures below the endorsement by the named Government Scientific Expert leave no doubt that the signatory has appended signatures mechanically without satisfying about the facts of the case and the result of examination or analysis of the matter or thing duly submitted to her. It is also argued that endorsement which is signed by the named Government Scientific Expert is not part of the document purporting to be a report and unless it is proved by the author who conducted the test and gave the report this document is ir^ admissible in evidence. 17. It is also argued that endorsement which is signed by the named Government Scientific Expert is not part of the document purporting to be a report and unless it is proved by the author who conducted the test and gave the report this document is ir^ admissible in evidence. 17. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has argued that signatures of the named Government Scientific Expert below the endorsement whereby the result of the examination was forwarded to the SHO concerned shows that the concerned Government Scientific Expert has confirmed the report of Junior Scientific Officer after satisfying herself that the substance of the examination or analysis was correct and conducted in accordance with the settled norms. Had she not agreed with the result of the examination or analysis, she would have refused to forward it to the SHO concerned knowing that it would be purporting to be her report in the capacity of named Government Scientific Expert to whom the matter or thing was submitted for examination or analysis. Learned Advocate General has also pointed out that the words endorsement and forwarded deserve to be read in the context these have appeared. 18. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties we may have to look for the meanings of words endorsement and forwarded in the context these have been used. In Blacks Law Dictionary (6th edition) the word endorsement, "As applied to documents, the term means the signature thereon of a person to whose order the document runs" (Page 774). Similarly in the Concise Oxford Dictionary the words endorse and endorsement have been given the following meanings : "Endorse 1 a confirm (a statement or opinion), b declare ones approval of. 2 sign or write on the back of (a document), esp. the back of (a bill, cheque, etc.) as the payee or to specify another as payee. 3 Write (an explanation or comment) on the back of a document. 4 Brit, enter details of a conviction for a motoring offence on (a driving licence)." "Endorsement 1 the act or an instance! of endorsing. 2 something with which a document etc. is endorsed, esp. a signature. 3 a record in a driving licence of a conviction for a motoring offence." 19. 4 Brit, enter details of a conviction for a motoring offence on (a driving licence)." "Endorsement 1 the act or an instance! of endorsing. 2 something with which a document etc. is endorsed, esp. a signature. 3 a record in a driving licence of a conviction for a motoring offence." 19. So far the word forward i& concerned, as per Blacks Law Dictionary as well as the Concise Oxford Dictionary it means: to send forward; to send toward the place of destination; to transmit. To ship goods by common carrier. 20. Therefore, keeping in view the Dictionary meanings of the words endorsement and forward we may hold that by signing the endorsement the named Government Scientific Expert has confirmed the result of the examination before forwarding it to the concerned SHO. In the normal office procedure by endorsement the document is simply forwarded to the endorsee either for information or necessary action, therefore, it is considered only a ministerial act. But endorsement may assume importance if in addition to simply sending the copy of the document certain directions are also issued to the endorsee. In the case in hand the endorsement does not appear to have been made in a routine to simply send a copy of the main document. In fact by it the result of the examination is forwarded under the signatures of named Government Scientific Expert who is definitely higher in rank to the Junior Scientific Officer signing the result of examination above the endorsement which shows that the named Government Scientific Expert has not appended his signatures mechanically but has verified the result of the examination and other particulars given above the endorsement. Otherwise it could be signed by any other Officer below the rank of Junior Scientific Expert signing the result of examination. 21. For adopting the interpretation as given hereinabove we are guided by the rule of interpretation of statute that the primary test is the language employed in the Act and when the words are clear and plain the Court is bound to accept the expressed intention of the legislature. 21. For adopting the interpretation as given hereinabove we are guided by the rule of interpretation of statute that the primary test is the language employed in the Act and when the words are clear and plain the Court is bound to accept the expressed intention of the legislature. Another solitary principle of interpretation is that if two constructions are possible by the language of the statute, the Court must choose the one which is consistent with good sense and fairness, and eschew the other which makes its operation unduly oppressive unjust or unreasonable, or which would lead to strange, inconsistent results or otherwise introduce an element of bewildering uncertainty and practical inconvenience in the working of the statute. (See M.V. Joshi v. M.U. Shimpi and another, 1961 SC 1494 and Dilip Kumar Sharma and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 133.) 22. In view of above discussion we have no hesitation to hold that all the three parts make the document in question as a document purporting to be report under the hand of named Government Scientific Expert as mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 293 Cr.P.C. We may also point out if the whole document consisting of all the three parts is not considered purporting to be a report, number of complications and difficulties would arise. If only second part is purporting to be a report7, the first and third parts need to be proved in accordance with law by calling their authors or the persons who are in the know of the contents of first and third part and the very purpose of making the document purporting to be a report per se admissible will be defeated. In this respect the judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Punjab v. Nachhattar Singh, 1982 Cr. L.J. 1197 and Bhagwan Das v. State of Punjab, 1982 Cr. L.J. 2138, are of great help. 23. The question before the learned Judges in State of Punjab v. Nachhattar Singh, was whether the result of the examination or analysis or the matter or thing is per se admissible or incidental intimation noted or endorsed in the document purported to be report. L.J. 2138, are of great help. 23. The question before the learned Judges in State of Punjab v. Nachhattar Singh, was whether the result of the examination or analysis or the matter or thing is per se admissible or incidental intimation noted or endorsed in the document purported to be report. It was held by the learned Judges in para 5 of the judgment that : ".....The use of the word document can lead to this inference that not only the opinion of the Chemical Examiner but all that is stated in the report becomes admissible without formal proof. If this were not so, such practical difficulties would arise as would render the examination of the Chemical Examiner or somebody from his office a dire necessity, and not only the position of the seal but even reference numbers of the communications received from the police would have to be proved by examining some witness so as to connect the material examined with the one sent for examination....." 24. Following this view in the later judgment in Bhagwan Das v. State of Punjab (supra) the learned Judges have quoted that it is not incumbent on the prosecution to examine any or every concerned official within the office of the Chemical Examiner with regard to the safe custody of the sample therein, and its failure to do so does not introduce any infirmity in its case. The reasoning given for coming to this conclusion in paras 11 to 15 of the judgment is : ".....That the Legislature has kept the amplitude of the provision as a wide one seems to be manifest from the very opening part of Section 293 of the Code itself. The language does not seem to confine it to the opinion of expert stricto sensu or to any artificially constricted meaning of his Report. Indeed the statute talks of any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government Scientific Expert. In legal terminology, the word document is one of larger connotation and what is more, the section brings within its ambit any such document purporting to be such a report. Indeed the statute talks of any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government Scientific Expert. In legal terminology, the word document is one of larger connotation and what is more, the section brings within its ambit any such document purporting to be such a report. It would thus appear that there is no warrant for any artificial constriction or narrowing down the ambit of the report visualised under Section 293 of the Code to only that part thereof which pertains to the opinion of the Chemical Examiner and excluding all the rest therefrom. 12. Again the significant words in Section 293 of the Code seem to be "upon any^ matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis." It would seem to be plain that the words duly submitted include within their ambit the mode and manner of the submission of the sample and its receipt by the Scientific Expert. Consequently, the report with regard to the manner of the submission of the sample for examination and its condition would come squarely within the scope of Section 293 of the Code. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioners then made a vain attempt to fall back on Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for contending that the report of Chemical Examiner, as a whole, would not be admissible thereunder. It seems to be obvious that recourse to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, in this context, is hardly permissible. It was not disputed before us that Section 293 of the Code was a special provision which in particular terms made admissible the reports of those Scientific Experts which have been enumerated expressly in sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code. It is obvious that special provisions of Section 293 of the Code herein must prevail over the general provisions of the Evidence Act, on the hallowed rule of construction that the special overrides the general. Consequently, the particular provisions regarding the admissibility of the reports of the Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, provided under Section 293 (4) (a) of the Code are plainly applicable and any document purporting to be the report of such an expert can as a whole be used as evidence at the trial. Consequently, the particular provisions regarding the admissibility of the reports of the Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government, provided under Section 293 (4) (a) of the Code are plainly applicable and any document purporting to be the report of such an expert can as a whole be used as evidence at the trial. Now once such a report is made admissible by law, it seems to me as wholly hypertechnical to dissect it into different parts and hold certain parts thereof as being out of the ambit of such admissibility. 14. On the larger canons of construction as well, it is not possible to accede to the view canvassed on behalf of the petitioners. A reading of Section 293 of the Code, as also the corresponding provisions of the earlier Section 510, plainly indicates the clear policy of the Legislature to obviate the examination of expert witnesses in this context and making their reports admissible per se. Reference to sub-section (3) would indicate that even where such an expert is summoned (unless expressly directed to appear personally), he may depute any other responsible officer working with him to depose about the same on his behalf. To read this provision so stringently as to make every (or any) person handling the sample in the office of the Chemical Examiner, as a necessary witness would, therefore, be in a way defeating the very purpose of the statute itself. It is plain that in practice it can hardly be possible to entrust all the samples to the Chemical Examiner himself or to the particular Analyst who may later come to examine the same. Therefore, the insistence upon obtaining the evidence or deposition or all employees of the Chemical Examiners Office, who would meanwhile be concerned with the safe transmission of the sample originally received, may well render nugatory the purpose underlying Section 293 of the Code and inordinarily delay the conclusion of criminal trials which, it is the policy of the law, to conclude expeditiously 15. Viewed from any angle, it seems to follow that Section 293 of the Code renders admissible the report of the Chemical Examiner as a whole including the averments with regard to the condition of the sample and the seals thereon and the manner of its receipt. The answer to the second question, posed at the outset is, therefore, rendered in the affirmative." 25. The answer to the second question, posed at the outset is, therefore, rendered in the affirmative." 25. In respect of evidentiary value of a document purporting to be report of named Government Scientific Expert, the learned Judges of Supreme Court in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1988) 3 SCC 513, in para 13 of the judgment have held that : ".....No hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the value to be attached to the report of the chemical examiner. Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the report of scientific experts may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings of the court. The chemical examiner does not, as a rule, give an opinion as to the cause of death but merely gives report of the chemical examination of the substance sent to him. The report by itself is not crucial. It is a piece of evidence. The only protection to it is that it does not require any formal proof. It is, however, open to the court if it thinks fit to call the chemical examiner and examine him as to the subject matter of the report......." 26. In the light of above discussion the reference is answered as under : The document purporting to be the report is the complete document including the result of examination signed at the end below the endorsement by the Assistant Director one of the Government Scientific Experts. 27. In view of the answer to the reference the appeals may be listed before the Division Bench for hearing. As per the majority judgment of two of us (Kamlesh Sharma and Kuldip Chand Sood, JJ.) the reference is answered in affirmative. The appeals may be listed before the Division Bench. Per. M.R. Verma, J.—I have had the benefit of going through the draft judgment of my esteemed colleague Honble Ms. Justice Kamlesh Sharma. I regret my inability to agree with the final conclusion arrived at by my learned colleague and, therefore, proceed to record reasons in support of my view which I propose to take in the matter. 2. Per. M.R. Verma, J.—I have had the benefit of going through the draft judgment of my esteemed colleague Honble Ms. Justice Kamlesh Sharma. I regret my inability to agree with the final conclusion arrived at by my learned colleague and, therefore, proceed to record reasons in support of my view which I propose to take in the matter. 2. Be it stated that the material facts, legal and dictionary meanings of the various expressions have been discussed and set out in detail in the judgment of my learned colleague and need not be set out in detail, therefore, I shall refer only to the material aspects of the matter herein. 3. The question raised in the reference we are to answer, is as follows:— Whether the document purported to be a report of the Chemical Examiner is only the result of examination signed by Shri A.K. Shrivastava, Junior Scientific Officer or it is the complete document including the result of examination, which is signed at the end, below the endorsement by the Assistant Director, one of the Government Scientific Experts? 4. The contents of the document Ext. PA in Cr.A. No. 144 of 1998 which is similarly worded as the relevant documents in the connected appeals which led to the making of the reference, are as follows :— "CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY (Bureau of Police Research and Development, Min. of Home Affairs, Government of India) CHANDIGARH. (Admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. 1973) 1. Report No. 1318/96-139/97 TOX. No. 351/96 Dated 27.2.1997 2. Reference No. 5618/5A dated 29.12.1996 from SHO PS Sadar Mandi 3. Subject : FIR No. 523/96 dated 29.12.1996 PS. Sadar Mandi HP under Section 20 NDPS Act 4. Date of Receipt: 5. Mode of Receipt: Through Const. Karam Singh No. 498/HP 6. Articles Received : One sealed parcel. The seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seals as per forwarding authorities letter. Parcel No. of seals Description 1 & impression Dark green colour solid mass in 3-A stick form (App. Wt. 13.52 gms) 7. Purpose of reference : For chemical analysis and report. RESULT OF EXAMINATION The contents of exhibit 1 was found to be CHARAS Note: After the examination of remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seals of TOX, CSL, CHD. Examined by : Sd/-1 Anil Kumar Srivastava Jr. Scientific Officer, Central Forensic Science Laboratory BPR&D, JjAHK, G.I., Sector 36-A, Chandigarh. Endst. RESULT OF EXAMINATION The contents of exhibit 1 was found to be CHARAS Note: After the examination of remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seals of TOX, CSL, CHD. Examined by : Sd/-1 Anil Kumar Srivastava Jr. Scientific Officer, Central Forensic Science Laboratory BPR&D, JjAHK, G.I., Sector 36-A, Chandigarh. Endst. No. CFSL/825 Forwarded to the SHO, PS, Sadar, Mandi, H.P. alongwith the exhibits through Karam Singh No. 498/HP on 27.2.1997. Sd/- 27/2/1997 (Mrs. Asha Dhir) Assistant Director (Ball) For DIRECTOR" 5. In substance, the question under reference is whether the aforesaid document purports to be a report under the hand of a Government Scientific Expert as specified in sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code). Apparently it is basically a question of fact which can be properly decided on the basis of evidence. The prosecution has not examined the person who has examined the article (Charas) and the trial Court has not chosen to summon the expert in exercise of its discretionary powers under subsection (2) of Section 293 of the Code. Therefore, answer to the question before us has to be found on appreciation of the document on its face value. 6. The document in question, on the face of it, consists of two parts. While deciding whether these two parts when read together constitute a report or these are two distinct parts of a composite document, the rule of interpretation of a statute, in my view, will not apply and instead application of rules of appreciation of evidence will help in arriving at the right conclusion. 7. It may also be pointed out here that in the class of cases in which the question has arisen, that is cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the alleged narcotic drug or psychotropic substance can be held as such only on the basis of the report of the Chemical Analyst. Therefore, the Courts must be more careful and cautious while reading such reports in evidence particularly when objected to for the obvious reasons that such reports are "evidence" without formal proof by virtue of special rule of evidence envisaged by the provisions of Section 293 of the Code wherein the accused has no opportunity to test the correctness of the report by cross-examining the author of the report. 8. 8. As already stated, the document in question on the face of it consists of two parts. The first part is signed by Anil Kumar Srivastava, Jr. Scientific Officer and the second part is signed by Mrs. Asha Dhir, Assistant Director (Ball). The first part as per serial No. 1 thereof, is mentioned as "Report No. 1318/96-139/97 TOX. No. 351/96 dated 27.2.1997". The second part of the report is termed as "Endst. No. CFSL/825, dated 27.2.1997." As per its contents, the first part contains the particulars regarding reference, subject, receipt, description of the case property, purpose of receipt, result of examination and the name, designation and signatures of the examiner. As per the contents of the second part, this document is forwarded to the sender of the article along with sealed remnants of the exhibit (the article) which stood sealed after the examination vide note appended to the first part. It is against these visual features of the said document that the question arises whether the contents of the documents as a whole can be said a document purporting to be a report under the hand of Mrs. Asha Dhir, the Assistant Director (Ball.) and thus per se admissible in evidence under Section 293 of the Code. 9. I am in respectful agreement with the observations of my learned colleague that in the normal office procedure by endorsement a document/letter is simply forwarded to the endorsee either for information or necessary action or for both, therefore, it is considered only a ministerial act of forwarding the document to the addressee. I may add that the expression "Endorsement number" in these circumstances means the serial number of the despatch register against which the entries containing particulars like name of the addressee, description of the document sent to him, the date of despatch, whether sent by Post and if so, the value of postage stamps used and if sent Dasti, the particulars of the person through whom it was sent, are made. The date of endorsement is the date of despatch. Therefore, the mentioning of endorsement and date thereof in a forwarding note in such a document simply means the serial number in the register of despatch against which the document was forwarded to the addressee and date means the date of despatch. The date of endorsement is the date of despatch. Therefore, the mentioning of endorsement and date thereof in a forwarding note in such a document simply means the serial number in the register of despatch against which the document was forwarded to the addressee and date means the date of despatch. Therefore, the expression Endorsement in official procedure for forwarding the communications/documents cannot be construed as an act of endorsing as it is understood for the purposes of commercial transactions. Examined against this settled official procedure, the signing of the second part of the document under reference cannot mean that Mrs. Asha Dhir had concurred with, approved and/or countersigned the contents of the first part of the document. In fact it is a composite document consisting of "report" in the first part signed by Anil Kumar Srivastava and of a forwarding note in the second part signed by Mrs. Asha Dhir. Had she approved the "report" in the normal course, she would have counter signed the first part or would have specifically indicated by use of words I concur or I agree or I endorse the above report. In the absence of any certificate/note in this regard, it is not possible to hold that the document in question purports to be a report under her hand. 10, There is yet another circumstance which lend support to the view I have taken. It cannot be disputed that a Forensic Science Laboratory may have different sections dealing with different subjects. It cannot be assumed that every Additional/Deputy/Assistant Director in such a Laboratory is by virtue of his qualification and experience capable of giving "expert opinion/report on all the subjects covered under the forensic science. Therefore, there must be assurance that the report has been made or convey the approval of the Government Scientific Expert who is qualified and experienced to give report on the particular subject which covers the subject matter of the reference made for giving the report. If the report is apparently prepared by a junior officer not covered under Section 293 of the Code, it must have approval of the Government Scientific Expert who is expert in the concerned subject/ field and thereby capable of according such approval. If the report is apparently prepared by a junior officer not covered under Section 293 of the Code, it must have approval of the Government Scientific Expert who is expert in the concerned subject/ field and thereby capable of according such approval. If he is not so qualified and had merely forwarded a report on the subject in which he is not shown expert, the only conclusion will be that his action was limited only to the forwarding of the report without forming any opinion of his own. In the case in hand, Mrs. Asha Dhirs designation under her signatures is mentioned as "Assistant Director (Ball.)". As far as the abbreviation "Ball." is concerned, in relation to a forensic science laboratory it evidently stands for "Ballistic". It means that Mrs. Asha Dhir is Assistant Director Ballistic and prima facie expert in "Ballistics". Could she then approve of the report concerning analysis of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance ? The simple answer in the absence of evidence to the contrary is that she could not. If so, her act of signing the note forwarding the document in question to the addressee will not render it a "document purporting to be report under the hand of a Government Scientific Expert". 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the reference is answered as under:— The first part of the document under reference is the report of the Junior Scientific Officer and the second part thereof is mere recital of the action of forwarding the document to the addressee and signing of this part by the Assistant Director (Ball.) does not make it "a document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government Scientific Expert to whom Section 293 of the Code applies." Per. Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—I have had the privilege and advantage of going through the draft judgments prepared by My Lords Honble Ms. Justice Kamlesh Sharma and Honble Mr. Justice M.R. Verma. I am in respectful agreement with the conclusion arrived at by my Lord Kamlesh Sharma, J. and regret my inability to agree with the view taken by My Lord Verma, J. However, I would like to add few reasons of my own. 2. Justice Kamlesh Sharma and Honble Mr. Justice M.R. Verma. I am in respectful agreement with the conclusion arrived at by my Lord Kamlesh Sharma, J. and regret my inability to agree with the view taken by My Lord Verma, J. However, I would like to add few reasons of my own. 2. The question which we are called upon to answer is: "Whether the document purported to be a report of the Chemical Examiner is only the result of examination signed by Shri A.K. Srivastava, Junior Scientific Officer or it is the complete document including the result of examination, which is signed at the end, below the endorsement by the Assistant. Director, one of the Government Scientific Experts?" 3. The necessary facts are set out in the draft judgment prepared by My Lord Kamlesh Sharma, J. The document Exhibit PA, in Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1998, which is in pari materia to the documents in the connected appeals, reads : CENTRAL FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY. (Bureau of Police Research and Development, Min. of Home Affairs, Government of India) Chandigarh (Admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. 1973) 1. Report No. 1318/96-139/97 TOX. No. 351/96 dated 27.2.1997. 2. Reference No. 5618/5A dated 29.12.1996 From: SHO PS Sadar Mandi HP 3. Subject: FIR No. 523/96 Dated 29.12.1996 P.S. Sadar Mandi HP 4. Date of Receipt: 5. Mode of Receipt : Through Const. Karam Singh No. 498/ HP 6. Articles Received : One sealed parcel. The seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seals as per forwarding authorities letter. Parcel No. of seals Description 1. & Impression Dark green colour solid 3-A. mass in stick form (App. Wt. 13.52 gms.) 7. Purpose of reference : For chemical analysis and report. RESULT OF EXAMINATION The contents of exhibit I was found to be CHARAS. Note : After the examination of remnants of the exhibits were sealed with the seals of TOX CFSL, CHD. Examined by : Sd/- Anil Kumar Srivastava Jr. Scientific Officer, Central Forensic Science Laboratory BPR&D, MHA, G.I. Sector 36-A, Chandigarh. Endst-No. CFSL/825. Dated: 27.2.1997 Forwarded to the SHO, PS, Sadar, Mandi, H.P. alongwith the exhibits through Karam Singh No. 498/HP on 27.2.1997. Sd/- 27.2.1997 (Mrs. Asha Dhir) Assistant Director (Ball) For Director". 4. Examined by : Sd/- Anil Kumar Srivastava Jr. Scientific Officer, Central Forensic Science Laboratory BPR&D, MHA, G.I. Sector 36-A, Chandigarh. Endst-No. CFSL/825. Dated: 27.2.1997 Forwarded to the SHO, PS, Sadar, Mandi, H.P. alongwith the exhibits through Karam Singh No. 498/HP on 27.2.1997. Sd/- 27.2.1997 (Mrs. Asha Dhir) Assistant Director (Ball) For Director". 4. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether the document "Exhibit PA" can be used as evidence in the trial of the accused, under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of the fact that the sample sent for chemical analysis and report was examined by Anil Kumar Srivastava, a Junior Scientific Officer in the Forensic Science Laboratory at Chandigarh who, admittedly, is not a named Officer under sub-section (4) of Section 293 though, such a report was forwarded to the concerned Police Officer, under endorsement of the Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, a named officer under clause (e) of sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code. 5, Section 293 of the Code may be reproduced for convenience: "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 proceedings under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings 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 (Deputy Director, Assistant Director) of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory; (f) The Serologist to the Government." 6. A bare perusal of Section 293 shows that any document which purports to be a report in the hand of a Scientific Expert which includes the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory, has been made admissible as evidence without its formal proof. It is, however, open to the Court, under sub-section (2), to summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of the report. As pointed out by the Apex Court in Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 513, such a document is only a piece of evidence. The evidentiary value to be attached to such a document depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. By this document, the Scientific Expert merely conveys report/result of the Chemical Examination of the substance sent to him for examination. The only protection to such a document is that it does not require any formal proof. 7. A careful reading of Section 293 of the Code makes it clear that it is the entire document which may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code without its formal proof provided the document purports to be a report under the hand of the Government Scientific Expert as named in sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code. It follows that before a document is permitted to be used as evidence without its formal proof under Section 293 of the Code, it must be shown ex-facie : (a) the document purports to be a report; (b) it is in the hand of the Government Scientific Expert as named under sub-section (4) of Section 293 and (c) subject matter of such a report was duly submitted to him for examination and analysis. 8. Sub-section (4) names the Government scientific experts which includes Assistant Director of the Central or State Forensic Science Laboratory. Now this document, Exhibit PA, (including the endorsement of the Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh whereby the document was sent to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station) indeed purports to be a report. The document gives the number of the report (Col. 1). Now this document, Exhibit PA, (including the endorsement of the Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh whereby the document was sent to the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station) indeed purports to be a report. The document gives the number of the report (Col. 1). It professes to be a report as the first line of the document reads: "admissible under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. 1973." The document, therefore, ex-facie, shows that this document purports to be a report in respect of the "dark green colour solid mass in stick form" weighing about 13.52 gms. (Col. 6) subject matter of FIR No. 523 of 1996 dated 29th December, 1996, Police Station, Sadar Mandi under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, received from SHO Police Station, Sadar Mandi for the chemical analysis (Col. 7). The substance sent for such chemical analysis and examination was found to be charas (under heading Result of Examination). This document also discloses that the substance sent for chemical examination was examined by Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, Junior Scientific Officer of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. Further reading of document shows that this document which contains the result of the examination was endorsed to the SHO Police Station, Sadar Mandi, from whom the reference was received, by Mrs. Asha Dhir, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory (Ball). 10. In the background noticed above, the question on which the answer to the reference depends is whether this document Exhibit PA which purports to be a report is under the hand of a Scientific Expert, as contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Act namely, Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, or not. 11. The contention of Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants is that it is the report, e.g., the result part of the document, which should be under the hand of the Assistant Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory to make it permissible to be used as evidence without its formal proof, under Section 293 of the Code. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Karol, learned Advocate General, argues that document Exhibit PA read as a whole is permissible to be used as evidence under Section 293 of the Code and not merely the report or conclusion part alone of this document. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Karol, learned Advocate General, argues that document Exhibit PA read as a whole is permissible to be used as evidence under Section 293 of the Code and not merely the report or conclusion part alone of this document. 12. At the cost of repetition, it may again be noticed that Section 293 makes a document admissible, without its formal proof which purports to be a report in the hand of a Scientific Expert as named in sub-section (4) of the Code. The provision in its application is not confined to the report part alone. Had the intention of the Legislature been to make only the report part admissible as evidence without its formal proof, then the expression "any document" would not have been used in this provision. The expression used would have been "any report in the hand of.../. A similar provision existed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in terms of Section 510 of that Code. Section 510 of 1898 Code may be reproduced: "510. (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government or the Chief Inspector of Explosives or the Director of Finger Print Bureau or an officer of the Mint, 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, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any such person as to the subject-matter of his report." 13. The intention of the Legislature in inserting this provision in the Code was that evidence of certain Government Experts, who are limited in number, may be often required in Criminal Courts as in the absence of an adequate provision, only the testimony in the Court could be legal evidence and, therefore, presence of such experts would be required in various courts for most of the times which will hamper their work. It is to obviate such a situation that special rule of evidence was put in the Statute by the Legislature for the Government Experts. It is to obviate such a situation that special rule of evidence was put in the Statute by the Legislature for the Government Experts. The Law Commission in its forty-first report under Chapter XLI, which led to the enactment of Section 293 in the Code of 1973 observed : "41.1. The framers of the Code were aware that the evidence of certain experts in the service of Government would be frequently required in criminal courts, and if these experts were to be treated as ordinary witnesses whose sworn statement in court alone could be legal evidence, they would be spending most of their time giving evidence. Also, the number of such experts was so small that they could not be always conveniently spared for attending the courts. Special rules of evidence were therefore framed for them. They are placed in Chapter 41 of the Code. In framing them, the cardinal rules of evidence have been kept in view and the number of experts kept at the minimum. Thus, according to Section 509, a civil surgeon or other medical witness is now exempted from appearing in the Court of Session if he has given evidence in the committing court; and his recorded statement in that court is by a special rule made evidence at the trial, the safeguard being that the trial Court (i.e., the Court of Session) can, if it thinks fit, summon and examine the witness. By Section 510, the report of a Chemical Examiner is made evidence without the Chemical Examiner being at all called to give evidence in Court, again the safeguard being that he can at the discretion of the Court be called and examined. The same rule applies to the report of the Chief Inspector of Explosives, the Director of Finger Print Bureau or an officer of the Mint. Various suggestions have been made to include other experts in this list. It is, we think, necessary that we proceed in this direction with some caution, for, although past experience does not show any abuse of these special provisions, it would be unwise to make them general." XXX XXX XXX XXX "41.6. Section 510 will deal with other expert reports where security is not a consideration. We propose to add two more experts in that list, namely,— (i) the Director of the Haffkeins Institute, Bombay; and (ii) the Director of the Central Forensic Laboratory. Section 510 will deal with other expert reports where security is not a consideration. We propose to add two more experts in that list, namely,— (i) the Director of the Haffkeins Institute, Bombay; and (ii) the Director of the Central Forensic Laboratory. We are not convinced that handwriting experts employed by Government should be treated in the same way. Their evidence is almost always subject to controversy and no special value can be attached to their reports merely because the expert is employed by Government. Nor can we justify the extension of this provision to cover ordinary medical or veterinary experts. The procedure here is very special and must be confined to special experts. In an earlier Report, the Commission noted that Section 510(2), as amended in 1955, makes it obligatory for the Court to summon the Chemical Examiner or other officer mentioned in sub-section (1), if either party so desires. The-Commission regarded this provision as unsatisfactory and recommended that it should be left to the discretion of the court to summon such officers. We agree with this recommendation and are suggesting an amendment to implement it". Section 510 may be revised to read as follows: "510. (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) 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 Finger Print Bureau; (d) the Director, of the Haffkeins Institute, Bombay; (e) the Director of Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Laboratory". 14. Thus the purpose for which Sections 292 and 293 of the Code were enacted is clear. The Legislature intended to save the Government Scientific Experts from personal presence in the Court. 14. Thus the purpose for which Sections 292 and 293 of the Code were enacted is clear. The Legislature intended to save the Government Scientific Experts from personal presence in the Court. It is for this reason that their reports were made admissible without its formal proof with the salutory safe guard that the trial Court may examine any such expert as to the subject matter of his report. I have already noticed that what is made admissible in evidence is the "entire document" which include the details of the sample sent for the purpose of analysis. Bereft of these details and endorsement, the report in itself cannot be linked to any particular case and will be of no use. As noticed by My Lord Kamlesh Sharma, J., the expression "document" leads to the inference, in the context of Section 293 of the Code, that it is not only the result part of the document but all that is stated in the entire document. The document in its entirety is made admissible in evidence without its formal proof. In my view, any other interpretation of this provision would defeat the intention of the Legislature viz. Government Scientific Experts may not be required to attend the Court to depose about the result of the analysis of the substance which might be sent to them for such purpose in the discharge of their duties. If report part alone is to be admissible, then the concerned Expert will have to be summoned in the Court in each case, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 293 of the Code, to depose, for example, about the safe receipt of the sample or substance, reference number of the police docket so as to connect the material received by them, for examination, with a particular case and so on I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Punjab v. Nachhattar Singh, 1982 Cri LJ 1197 and Bhagwan Dass v. State of Punjab, 1982 Cri. LJ 2138, particularly the following observations in Bhagwan Dass : ".....The language does not seem to confine it to the opinion of the expert stricto sensu or to any artificially constricted meaning of his Report. Indeed, the statute talks of any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government Scientific Expert. LJ 2138, particularly the following observations in Bhagwan Dass : ".....The language does not seem to confine it to the opinion of the expert stricto sensu or to any artificially constricted meaning of his Report. Indeed, the statute talks of any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government Scientific Expert. In legal terminology, the word document is one of larger connotation and what is more, the Section brings within its ambit any such document purporting to be such a report. It would thus appear that there is no warrant for any artificial constriction or narrowing down the ambit of the report visualised under Section 293 of the Code to only that part thereof which pertains to the opinion of the Chemical Examiner and excluding all the rest there from". 15. I am of the considered opinion that the entire document Exhibit PA, including the endorsement of the Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh is admissible in evidence without its formal proof. Any hypertechnical interpretation would defeat the object and purpose sought to be achieved by the provision of Section 293 of the Code and shall lead to mischief. It will result in unmerited acquittals, the Supreme Court in RC. Purushothama Reddiar v. S. Perumal, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 608, observed in no uncertain terms that once a document is properly admitted and marked as exhibit without any objection from a party, then it is not open to a party to object to the admissibility of those documents at appellate stage. 16. In Baldev Krishna Sahi v. Shipping Corporation of India Limited and another, (1987) 4 Supreme Court Cases 361, Their Lordships held that it is the duty of the Court to place a broad and liberal construction on the provision in furtherance of the object and purpose of the legislation which would suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. 17. The law, pointed out Apex Court, in Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan and another, (1994) 3 Supreme Court Cases 440, is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate it. 17. The law, pointed out Apex Court, in Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan and another, (1994) 3 Supreme Court Cases 440, is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate it. Interpretation which restrict or narrows down the ambit and scope of Section 293 of the Code to the report alone would not, to my mind, further the ends of justice, more so, when the report of the Scientific Expert is merely a piece of evidence the evidentiary value of which is to be tested on the facts and circumstances of each case. Legislature has taken care to provide adequate safeguard in clothing the court with power to summon and examine any such expert as to the subject matter of his report. 18. The question may also be viewed in the context of sub-section (3) of Section 293. This provision stipulates that the Government Expert need not appear in person unless expressly directed to do so. Such Government Expert can depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court provided he is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose on his behalf in the Court. Now assuming that the Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh was to be summoned for his examination regarding the subject matter of the document/report, it would not be necessary for him to attend the Court personally and depose regarding this document. It would be permissible for him to depute Anil Kumar Srivastava, Junior Scientific Officer who analysed and examined the substance sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory and his evidence would be admissible in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 293. 19. It is indisputable that if a document is signed or is under the hand of the Government Scientific Expert, the Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in this case, then such document in its entirety would be admissible as evidence without its formal proof though such Scientific Expert may not have himself examined or analysed the substance sent to him. The object of the legislature in framing of Section 510 (now Section 293) of the Code was, as noticed earlier, to save the Government Scientific Experts from their personal appearance in the Court who are small in number. Any interpretation which constricts the object and purpose of the Legislature is not permissible. 20. The object of the legislature in framing of Section 510 (now Section 293) of the Code was, as noticed earlier, to save the Government Scientific Experts from their personal appearance in the Court who are small in number. Any interpretation which constricts the object and purpose of the Legislature is not permissible. 20. An interpretation of Section 293 which gives undue advantage to an accused, in my view, will not be in the interest of justice and public good. The Apex Court in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1, cautioned that while interpreting the provision of the Act, the Court must strike a balance between the deviance, transgression of law and liberty of the individual. Their Lordships in para 40 of the judgment observed : "40. The purpose of interpretation is to sustain the law. The Court must interpret the words or the language in the statute to promote public good and misuse of power is interdicted. Criminal Law primarily concerns with social protection and prescribes rules of behaviour to be observed by all. Law punishes for deviance, transgression, violation or omission. Liberty of the individual and security and order in the society or public order are delicate and yet paramount considerations. Undue emphasis on either would impede harmony and hamper public good as well as disturb social weal and peace. To keep the weal balanced, must be the prime duty of the Judiciary." 21. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the endorsement signed by the Assistant Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory is a ministerial act forwarding the report to the concerned SHO. The endorsement, it was argued, was signed by the named Scientific Expert in a mechanical manner without satisfying himself about the correctness of the analysis/examination of the substance sent to the Laboratory. The contention of Mr. Sanjay Karol, learned Advocate General, on the other hand, is that endorsement signed by the named Scientific Expert of the Government is in confirmation of the report of the Junior Scientific Officer. It is the further contention of learned Advocate General that if the named Scientific Expert, in this case the Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, was not satisfied with the report of the Junior Scientific Officer, he would not have endorsed and forwarded the report to the concerned SHO. It is the further contention of learned Advocate General that if the named Scientific Expert, in this case the Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, was not satisfied with the report of the Junior Scientific Officer, he would not have endorsed and forwarded the report to the concerned SHO. The contention of the learned Advocate General is well founded. The endorsement on the report of the result of examination of Junior Scientific Officer and forwarding the same to the SHO, Police Station, Sadar Mandi cannot but be in approval of such result. The endorsement by the Assistant Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory cannot, in my view, be said to be a ministerial Act. There is no dispute that the Assistant Director of the Laboratory is superior officer to the Junior Scientific Officer. If it was to be a ministerial Act, then there was no need for a Senior Officer to forward the report to the SHO concerned. The report could be forwarded to the concerned SHO by any Administrative Officer or Superintendent or any Administrative Assistant of the Directorate. The very fact that it was endorsed and forwarded to the concerned SHO by a named Scientific Expert of the Government, in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 293, would show that the same was sent in approval of the result of examination carried out by the Junior Officer. 22. With great respect, I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the view taken by My Lord Verma, J. that the explanation "endorsement" is a ministerial and mechanical act of the named Government Scientific Expert and is not a part of the document for the reasons discussed above. 23. The inevitable conclusion is that document Exhibit PA purports to be a report and the same is under the hand of the named Government Scientific Officer in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code which makes this document admissible in evidence without its formal proof. 24. I also find myself unable to agree with My Lord Verma, J. that Mrs. 24. I also find myself unable to agree with My Lord Verma, J. that Mrs. Asha Dhir, Government Director, who endorsed the report to the concerned SHO, was expert in "Ballistic" as the expression "Ball" after the words "Assistant Director" suggests and, therefore, her endorsement of the report of the Assistant Scientific Officer to the SHO concerned would be a ministerial act inasmuch as she was not expert in the analysis of Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance. 25. In my view, it is not open to us to surmise that document Exhibit PA is endorsed by the Government Scientific Expert who is not concerned with or who has no knowledge about the Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substance. There is no material on record to come to such a conclusion. Merely because expression "Ball" has been used after words "Assistant Director" does not lead to the conclusion, in my humble view, that the concerned Assistant Director did not have any knowledge about the Narcotic Drugs. 26. There is no warrant for the conclusion from the reading of subsection (4) of Section 293, that the named Government Scientific Expert should be an expert in a particular scientific field. There can be no dispute that there is only one Director in the Central or State Forensic Science Laboratory. He may not be specialist in each and every scientific subject which come for examination in the laboratory, yet a report signed by the Director of the Central or State Forensic Science Laboratory is admissible under sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Act. Assuming this report was signed by a Director who is not specialist in the subject of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substance, can it be said that the report would be inadmissible in evidence without its formal proof? The answer evidently is in negative. The Legislature in its wisdom has reposed faith in the Senior Scientific Experts that they will ensure that proper care and caution is taken by the Scientific Officers in the Directorate in analysing the substance sent to them for examination and that is why a document, which purports to be a report under the hand of named Government Scientific Experts, has been made admissible as evidence without its formal proof. 27. 27. My answer to the reference, for the reasons recorded by My Lord Kamlesh Sharma, J. and the reasons discussed above, is : Document Exhibit PA, which purports to be a report in respect of the examination/analysis of the substance sent to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory Chandigarh, by the SHO Police Station Sadar, Mandi, in its entirety, including the endorsement in the hands of the Assistant Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh thereby sending the report to the concerned SHO, is admissible in evidence, without its formal proof, under the provisions of Section 293 of the Code.