Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CFSL Report

28. The detonators had been earlier sent for CFSL examination and CFSL report was received. As per the said report 3 detonators were live ones. On physio-chemical examination presence of high explosive based on RDX was found in parcel S1 and S2 i.e. two samples. The chemical composition, percentage, working, etc. of the RDX has not been elaborated and discussed. It is also apparent that CFSL report was not tendered in evidence though the same is admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Dharam Pal versus State, (2011) 125 DRJ 417, has held that in view of Section 293 Cr.P.C. the said report need not be proved by summoning the author thereof, but that does not mean that nobody should tender the same in evidence and the same should have been exhibited by deposing that the object/material was sent for examination and the report in question was obtained during investigation in the case in question. However, in the present case we find that in the written arguments submitted by the respondents, reference is made to this report dated 31st May, 2007 made under Section 293 Cr.P.C. Nevertheless, the report was never formally tendered in evidence. A forensic report of such nature is per se admissible, but the court has a right to summon the expert. The accused can also ask for summoning of the expert or any other person to rebut and demolish a report. Thus, the question would still arise whether this report should be accepted and read in evidence without examination of the scientific expert in a case like the present one. The said report is signed by the Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, CBI, New Delhi and records that parcels, S1 and S2 and electronic timer can form components of an improvised explosive device and, therefore, constitutes an explosive as defined in the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. We have already referred to absence of working details, particulars etc. in the CFSL report. Impugned judgment does not refer to the CFSL report and has not examined the question of oral deposition of the chemical examiner. The charges against the respondents are grave and if proved can entail imprisonment for life.