Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 753 (HP)

Akshay Doegar v. State of H. P.

2013-08-20

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2013
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral). Challenge herein is to the order dated 10.6.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla in an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the accused, with a prayer to summon the hand writing expert, who has issued the report Ex.PX for his cross-examination to be conduced on behalf of the accused. 2. The accused-petitioner is facing trial under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla. The prosecution evidence stands closed and the trial is at the stage of recording the statement of accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The allegations against the accused-petitioner precisely are that he has forged the signature of a dead person namely P.S. Verma on a letter and on the basis thereof got the plan of his house sanctioned from Municipal Corporation, Shimla. The admitted signature and hand writing of the accused-petitioner seems to be obtained and sent for comparison with the disputed letter to FSL. The prosecution has tendered the report of the Forensic Science Expert Ex.PX in evidence without examining the expert. It has been submitted that though the tendering of this document was objected to on behalf of the accused-petitioner, however, the objection so raised has not been taken note of and to the contrary, the application, filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the expert and allowing the accused petitioner to cross-examine him, has been erroneously dismissed vide order impugned in the present petition. 3. Learned Additional Advocate General has contended that since the report of the expert Ex.PX stands exhibited in evidence and the accused-petitioner did not object to the same at an appropriate stage, therefore, learned trial Magistrate has rightly declined the permission sought for cross-examination of the expert witness. 4. Having gone through the record available at this stage and taking into consideration the rival submissions, I am satisfied that the Court below has not appreciated the provisions contained under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and also the principle of fair trial in its right perspective for the reason that the report Ex.PX goes against the accused-petitioner and as such the same can only be relied upon against him if he is allowed to cross-examine the expert witness. 5. 5. The apex Court in Phool Kumar versus Delhi Administration, (1975) 1 SCC 797 , has held that in case an application is filed by the accused for summoning the expert, the Court should allow the same and that it is the bounden duty of the Court to summon the expert. Therefore, applying the ratio of the judgment supra to the given facts and circumstances of this case, the only and inescapable conclusion would be that the prayer made by the accused-petitioner qua summoning the expert witness for cross examination being genuine and in the ends of justice should have been allowed. Therefore, I accept this petition and quash the impugned order to the extent of dismissal of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner with a direction to learned Magistrate below to summon the expert witness on a date left open to be fixed by her for being cross-examined on behalf of the accused petitioner and thereafter to proceed further in the main case. The petition stands accordingly disposed of.