Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Orissa vs Jayanta Kumar Das on 24 October, 2016
Bench: A.K. Sikri, N.V. Ramana
ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.8 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)......
CRLMP No. 16962/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28/01/2016
in CRLMC No. 5121/2015 passed by the High Court of Orissa at
Cuttack)
STATE OF ORISSA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
JAYANTA KUMAR DAS Respondent(s)
(With appln. (s) for c/delay in filing SLP, c/delay in refiling SLP
and office report)
Date : 24/10/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shibashish Misra, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submits that the High Court by the impugned order has directed the Trial Court to ascertain as to whether Central Forensic Science Laboratory (C.F.S.L.), Kolkata, has been notified as an Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Examiner of Electronic Evidence as contemplated under Section Date: 2016.10.26 17:07:05 IST Reason: 79-A of the Information Technology Act, 2008. He concedes 1 SLP CRLMP No. 16962/2016 that there is no such notification as per the information received by the petitioner-State. At the same time, it is also argued that the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued Notification dated 26.07.2013, as per which, certain laboratories are notified as expert laboratories whose evidence shall be admissible in the Court of Law within the purview of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 292 (Subs.by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2005 (Act No. 2 of 2006), Section 5 (w.e.f. 16.04.2006; [293 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Subs. by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act No. 25 of 2005)], Section 26(a) (w.e.f. 23.06.2006) and of any other law wherever so prescribed.
On the basis of the aforesaid submission, he further points out that it includes C.F.S.L., Kolkata, and the submission is that the said laboratory is duly authorised as expert laboratory whose evidence shall be admissible for the purposes of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He, thus, submits that even if C.F.S.L., Kolkata, is not notified as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence under Section 79A of the Information and Technology Act, the aforesaid notification covering it under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in any case serves the purpose and the Report of the said laboratory would be admissible under the aforesaid provision.
For this purpose, it is not necessary to issue notice 2 SLP CRLMP No. 16962/2016 in the instant case and the special leave petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to examine the aforesaid plea of the petitioner as well, while carrying out the direction of the High Court in the impugned order.
Ordered accordingly.
(Nidhi Ahuja) (Mala Kumari Sharma)
Court Master Court Master
3