Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1426 (AP)

Pinninti Satyanarayana v. State Of A. P.

2003-11-19

V.ESWARAIAH

body2003
V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED No. 6 in C. C. No. 268 of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Vizianagaram filed this criminal revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 13-10-2003 made in Criminal M. P. No. 4028 of 2003 in CC 268 of 2001 of the said court. By the said order, the learned Magistrate allowed the application of the Public Prosecutor filed under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure code to receive the opinion of the Expert in evidence by summoning the Expert as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. ( 2 ) ASSISTANT Public Prosecutor filed an application in Criminal M. P. No. 4028 of 2003 stating that at the time of examination, the investigating officer stated that he obtained the signatures of the accused in the presence of the mediators and sent the signatures for expert s opinion, who compared the signatures and gave his opinion. But by mistake, the Expert was not cited as a witness. Though the name of Expert was referred in the charge-sheet, but before receiving the expert s opinion, the charge-sheet was filed and as such, it is necessary to examine the expert and also to mark the Expert s opinion to prove the guilt of the accused. In the charge-sheet it is stated as follows:"l. W. 15 obtained the Sample signatures of A-4 and A-6 in the presence of the mediators L. Ws. 11 and 12. L. W. 17 forwarded the sample signatures to the finger Print Bureau, Hyderabad, for analysis and report. L. W. 17 also forwarded the questioned signatures of a-2 and A-6 with specimen signatures to the handwriting expert, F. S. L. , hyderabad. L. W. 13 who analyzed the thumb mark of A-4 and signature of A-6, issued his report opining that they are identical with sample and questioned documents and the person who put her thumb mark at the time of receiving cheque. . . ". ( 3 ) THUS, it is clear from the aforesaid charge-sheet that the Investigating Officer obtained the signatures of the accused in the presence of the mediators and sent the signature and thumb mark to the Expert for his opinion, who compared the signature and thumb mark and gave his opinion. . . ". ( 3 ) THUS, it is clear from the aforesaid charge-sheet that the Investigating Officer obtained the signatures of the accused in the presence of the mediators and sent the signature and thumb mark to the Expert for his opinion, who compared the signature and thumb mark and gave his opinion. But by mistake, the Expert was not cited as a witness, though his name was referred in the charge-sheet and charge-sheet was filed before receiving the Expert s opinion. As such it is stated that it is necessary to examine the expert and also to mark his opinion to prove the guilt of the accused. It is stated that the expert s opinion is relevant for considering the case of the prosecution and as such the document can be received by summoning the expert. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under Sec. 173 (5) of the criminal Procedure Code, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with report:- (A) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; and (B) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine now as its witnesses. If any statement is not relevant it shall be indicated then a request has to be made to exclude that part from the copies to be given to the accused. ( 5 ) HE further submits that under Sec. 173 (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, no doubt the police has got power for further investigation in respect of an offence even after filing of the report under Section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code, any such further evidence, oral or documentary, shall be forwarded to the Magistrate by a further report regarding such evidence and thus he submits that the expert s opinion and his evidence is a further investigation and therefore, the prosecution cannot be allowed to summon the expert to give evidence working the expert s report without filing the further report as contemplated under section 173 Cr. P. C. ( 6 ) I cannot accept the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, as certain Government scientific experts reports are admissible in evidence under section 293 of the Code of Criminal procedure. P. C. ( 6 ) I cannot accept the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, as certain Government scientific experts reports are admissible in evidence under section 293 of the Code of Criminal procedure. Under Section 293 of the Code of criminal Procedure, any document purporting to be a report under the hands of a Government scientific expert, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and the said report in the course of any proceedings under this code, may be used as evidence in an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code. Thus, under Section293 (l) Cr. P. C. , the expert opinion may be used as evidence in an inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the code and therefore, there is no bar for receiving the expert opinion Under Sec. 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under section 311 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the Court is empowered, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding, to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned, as a witness, if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. In the instant case, the learned additional Public Prosecutor of the Court below rightly filed such an application under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the expert for the purpose of marking expert s opinion. Hence, I am of the view that there is no bar under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to summon the expert as a witness for the purpose of marking the expert opinion as it is not a further investigation or a further evidence but it was part of the evidence that was investigated by the Investigating officer and therefore, there is no need for filing the further report. Therefore, I do not see any merits in the Criminal Revision Petition. ( 7 ) THE Criminal Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.