JUDGMENT : ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE.J Short question involved herein would be whether the learned Judge committed any error in accepting the F.S.L. report without compelling the concerned officer being the author of the report to come and dispose before the Court. The order impugned herein rejected the prayer of the defence inter alia asking for rejection of the report in absence of the author despite service of summons upon him. The learned judge considered the provision of Section 293 of the Criminal Civil Procedure Code and its interpretation by the Apex Court in 2010 Volume-I Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) Page-1165 (State of Himachal Pradesh –Vs- Mast Ram). The defence cited another Apex Court decision reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal NOC 163 [Jharkhand] (Vijay Narayan Singh –VS- State of Bihar[now Jharkhand]). The learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Berhampore held that the F.S.L. report so submitted by the prosecution was not in dispute. Hence, Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code would permit the Court to accept the same without examining the author. The learned Judge however recorded that despite attempts being made, prosecution failed to produce the author. Hence, the revisional application by the accused. Mr.Sukanta Chakraborty learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cited the following decisions:- i) 1986 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter (Calcutta) Page-138 (June @ Arjun Mandi – VS- The State) ii) All India Reporter 1970 (Supreme Court) Page-366 (Ram Dayal –VS- Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Another) iii) All India Reporter 1972 (Supreme Court) Page-975 (H.P. Administration –VS- Om Pradesh) iv) All India Reporter 1975 (Supreme Court) Page-905 (Phool Kumar –VS- Delhi Administration) Mr. Kallol Mondal learned counsel appearing for the prosecution on the other hand cited the latest decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of H.P.-Vs- Mast Ram (Supra). Mr. Mondal supported the decision of the learned Judge impugned therein and opposed the application in revision. Let me discuss the law on the subject:- i) In the case of June @ Arjun Mandi (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court considered the provision of Section 294 and held that the said provision was enacted to avoid wastage of time for proof of certain documents where formal proof could be dispensed with. While observing so, the Division Bench considered Section 58 of evidence Act and observed that the said provision was restricted to judicial admission. While observing so, the Division Bench considered Section 58 of evidence Act and observed that the said provision was restricted to judicial admission. The Division Bench ultimately observed that the post mortem report could be read in evidence after the factum of holding of the post mortem examination was proved through the doctor. However, the Division Bench also observed, the report could be read in evidence where no objection was raised on its authenticity. ii) In the case of Ram Dayal (Supra), the Apex Court refused to interfere by giving opportunity to the accused to examine the public analyst in absence of Cogent reason being assigned. iii) In the case of H.P. Administration (Supra), the Apex Court observed that in case of doubt being raised in the report the person should be called, otherwise the same could be accepted as expert evidence. iv) In the decision of the Phool Kumar (Supra), the fingerprint expert report was considered in evidence without calling him. The Apex Court observed that the Court should summon the expert for examination only in case of the accused filing an application for such purpose. v) In the case of State of Himachal Prodesh –Vs- Mast Ram (Supra), the provision of Section 293 came up for consideration. The Apex Court observed that the report by Junior Scientific Officer could not have been ignored in view of express mandate of Section 293(4). On a sum total of the discussions it appears to me that to have expeditious trial the Court has to take a pragmatic approach. Initially, the summons were issued to the author to come and support the report. Despite repeated attempts, it could not be done. The defence could not show that the report expressed doubt requiring the author to explain such doubt so that Court could go into the same and ultimately draw a conclusion. It is no body’s case before the Court below or before me that the report could raise doubt in the mind of the Court and further clarification was required from the author. In my view, his presence would be a mere formality when neither the contents could be effectively criticized nor his signature was in dispute. It is no body’s case before the Court below or before me that the report could raise doubt in the mind of the Court and further clarification was required from the author. In my view, his presence would be a mere formality when neither the contents could be effectively criticized nor his signature was in dispute. If we read Sections 293 and 294 together we would find that the report of certain Government Officers could be read in evidence when there was neither any objection with regard to its genuineness and / or authenticity nor any doubt was expressed by the author in his report which would require further clarification from him. Mr Chakraborty contended that once summons were issued by the Court the officer was duty bound to appear. His absence would automatically call for a warrant of arrest to be issued. In my view, no purpose would be served insisting on his presence through warrant of arrest as he would not be any a position to assist the trial same and except reiterating what he had stated in his report. This would unnecessarily cause delay and cause hindrance in the process of expeditious trial. The learned Judge rightly accepted the said report in evidence. I do not find any scope to interfere with the same. The revisional application fails and is hereby dismissed. Lower Court records, if received in the mean time, must be sent down at once. Urgent Xerox certified copy will be given to the parties, if applied for.