Anil Kumar vs State (Gnct Of Delhi) on 6 November, 2015
44. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on
Imamuddin v. State of U.P., 2009 Crl. L.J. 4477 (Allahabad), to argue
that the ballistic expert's report must be viewed with suspicion because
the exhibits having been sent by the investigating officer in September,
2007 were examined with inordinate delay on or about 21.08.2008.
We do not find any substance in the submission. The case of
Imamuddin decided by the division bench of Allahabad High Court is
distinguishable on facts. The prosecution in that case had failed
primarily for the reason that the evidence as to the recovery of firearm
itself was found not to be worthy of reliance. In the case at hand, there
is no disputing the factum of recovery of the pistol, or it being the
property of the appellant held against a valid arms license. The delay
on the part of the FSL in examining the exhibit cannot be fatal to the
prosecution case.