Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

challenge to aforesaid order on the ground of delay. However, aforesaid order came to be laid challenge before this Court in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C, but same are still pending.

During pendency of aforesaid petition before this Court, accused filed an application under Section 293(2) Cr.P.C, praying therein to afford an opportunity to him to cross-examine chemical analyst qua his report.

Though, learned Court below, is right in observing in the impugned order that appropriate stage is yet to come because name of Sh. Kapil Sharma, Assistant Director, State FSL, Junga, finds mention in the list of prosecution witnesses, but if impugned order passed by Court below is read in its entirety, there appears to be considerable force in the submission of Mr. Nareshwar Singh Chandel, learned Senior Counsel, that the findings returned by Court below that prayer to cross-examine particular witness can only be accepted at the behest of accused once he or she enters upon his/her defence, is not based upon proper appreciation of provisions contained under Section 293 Cr.P.C. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of provision under Section 293(2) Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

though provides that Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject- matter of his report , however, bare reading of aforesaid provision of law, nowhere suggests that Court on the application, if any, filed by accused, can also summon author of the report for examination, but by now, it is well settled that Court either on its own motion or on the application having been filed by the accused under Section 293(2) Cr.P.C, can ask officers as detailed in Section 293 (4) Cr.P.C for examination qua the report submitted by them.

8. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to Section 293 Cr.P.C, contended that though there is provision which enables Court to summon author of the report for cross-examination, but definitely this Section doesn't talk about the application, if any, made on behalf of the accused for summoning author of the report for cross-examination. As has been fairly stated hereinabove that though there is no such provision in Section 293 Cr.P.C, which talks about filing of an application by the accused, praying therein to summon author of the report, but Hon'ble Apex Court as well as other Constitutional Courts, in catena of cases, have held that once report of chemical analyst is accepted in evidence, it is bounden duty of the Court to examine author of the report either on its own motion or on the application having been filed by accused.

different weapons, however, the accused did not choose to do so in terms of Section 293 Cr.P.C. In any case, the opinion of Rup Singh as of today is of little use to the accused for the reasons stated above and since it is both inconclusive and unsupported by any reasoning whatsoever and, therefore, cannot appeal to the judicial mind of this Court."

16. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that report of chemical analyst is per se admissible and if accused has grouse with regard to veracity of the same, option lies with him under Section 293 Cr.P.C to call for the witness and ascertain the correctness of the report submitted by him. In case, such opportunity is not availed by accused, report placed on record shall be read against him.