Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debashree Chakraborty vs Unknown on 1 December, 2023
Author: Tirthankar Ghosh
Bench: Tirthankar Ghosh
01.12.2023
Serial no. 360
[G.S.D]
CRR 4455 of 2023
In the matter of : Debashree Chakraborty
... ... Petitioner
Mr. A. Jana
Mr. S. Chakraborty
Mr. Prosenjit Ghosh
... petitioner
Mr. U. Banerjee
... for the O.P.
The petitioner has challenged a document which
bears the signature of the petitioner.
Ld. Magistrate has admitted the document in
evidence by way of marking the same as 'Exbt. with
Objection'. The petitioner took out an application for sending
the document to a hand writing expert so that the signature
of the petitioner can be verified.
Ld. advocate submits that if the signature of the
petitioner is not verified, at this stage, he will suffer
prejudice. The said document, according to the petitioner, is
a signature on a Photocopy of Aadhar Card.
Ld. advocate submits that under Section 294 Cr.P.C.,
it was open to the ld. advocate to send the document to a
hand writing expert, as the genuinity of the document has
been challenged by one of the parties.
Ld. advocate for the petitioner has also relied upon a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court In re: Criminal
Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies -
vs- State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in [(2021) 10
SCC 598]".
So far as the issue relating to section 294 is
concerned, the section deals with a sub-heading
'Commission for examination of witnesses'. The head note of
Section 294 refers to 'no formal proof of certain documents'.
The document so tendered had not been verified which are
required to be proved in course of evidence.
I have taken into account the judgment relied upon
by the petitioner wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was
pleased to lay down the guidelines but the same was not
relating to the documents and the stage at which the same
are required to be sent to a hand writing expert.
The ld. trial court has expressed its view that the
prosecution witness have not even been completed and the
application for hand writing expert has been filed by the
accused. The ld. trial court has not rejected the application
but has observed that ample opportunity is available to the
defence to bring into evidence and prove the case at the
time of its turn.
The ld. trial court while conducting the trial is
required to follow the chronology as has been depicted in
the Evidence Act as well as the Cr.P.C., particularly, in
respect of the cases which are to be tried as summons
triable case.
There may be circumstance when the court can come
to a finding by ignoring a particular document concern.
However, the prosecution must be allowed to present its
evidence. Until and unless the prosecution evidence is
closed, it would be difficult for a court of law to pick and
choose the document and send it for a hand writing expert
for opinion, which would make the system complex in course
of progress of the trial.
The petitioner would have to take a specific defence
both at the stage of cross-examination and at the stage of
section 313 of cr.p.c. Until and unless that stage is reached,
it would be difficult for a court of law to send a changed
document to any authority for opinion as that would
unnecessarily delay the progress of the trial as has been
expressed in the order dated 16.9.2023.
In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the
application which has been filed by the petitioner should not
be treated to be rejected and be considered at the
appropriate stage of the trial as being kept in abeyance by
the ld. trial court to be considered at the appropriate stage.
With the aforesaid observations, CRR 4455 of 2023 is
disposed of.
Pending application, if any, is also disposed of.
Parties to act on a server copy of this order duly
collected from the official website of the Hon'ble High Court
at Calcutta.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be supplied to the parties, subject to compliance
with all requisite formalities.
(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)
