Randhir Singh And Anr. vs State Of Delhi
1993 Latest Caselaw 423 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) The allegation against these petitioners is that they had used a forged rent receipt allegedly bearing the thumb impression of Mrs. Harbans Kaur, land lady as a genuine document before the officials of. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for issuance of a factory license for a factory to be run in the premises in their tenancy. The complainant, Mrs. Harbans Kaur had disputed that the thumb impression was not hers. On the basis of these allegations, these petitioners were prosecuted under Sections 420/467/471 IPC. To prove its case the prosecution took the specimen thumb impressions of the complainant and had sent the same for comparison vis-a-vis the thumb impression on the alleged rent receipt to the finger prints division of the Cfsl, which submitted the report that the specimen thumb impression and the questioned thumb impression on the rent receipt did not belong to the same person. In defense the petitioners got the questioned and the specimen thumb impressions examined by one Mr. M.S. Walia, handwriting and finger prints expert, who opined that the specimen thumb impression of Mrs. Harbans Kaur and the questioned thumb impression are marked by one and the same person. Since two hand writing experts have given two contradictory opinions on the same facts, so for the proper adjudication of the case the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to arrive at a correct decision directed that the questioned and the specimen thumb impressions be sent to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for his report.

(2) It is this order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 6-2-1993 which has been challenged in this petition.

(3) Mr. C.M. Sanon, learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention towards various decisions of the High Courts as well as that of the Supreme Court reported as Ramdeo Rai vs Mahabir Rai and Ors. [1969 Cri.L.J. (Patna) 90]; State of Mysore vs A.G. Ramaswamy [ 1969 Cri .L.J. (Mysore) 123]; Didar Singh vs. State of Punjab [ 1977 Chandigarh Law Reporter (Punjab & Haryana) 60], Gurdev Singh vs. State of Punjab [1980 Chandigarh Law Reporter {Punjab & Haryana} 156] and Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs State of Maharashtra [1968 Cri. L J. 231 (Vol.74)] in support of his contention that the Court under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (equivalent to 540 Cr.P.C. old) cannot reopen investigation to the disadvantage of the accused and that no power has been vested in the Court under this section to take additional evidence. The direction to compare the questioned and the specimen thumb impressions of Smt.Harbans Kaur by the hand writing expert at Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh amounts to taking additional evidence and according to him this order is without jurisdiction and illegal.

(4) It is settled law, as has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported as Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs State of Maharashtra [1968 Cri.L.J. 231 (Vol.74)] that there is no limitation on power of court arising from stage to which trial may have reached, provided court is bona fide of opinion that for just decision of case step must be taken. It is clear that the requirement of just decision of the case does not limit the action to something in the interest of the accused alone. The action may equally benefit the prosecution.There are, however, two aspects of the matter which must be distinctly kept apart. The first is that the prosecution cannot be allowed to rebut the defense evidence unless the accused brings forward something suddenly and unexpectedly. There is, however, the other aspect, namely, of the power of the Court which is to be exercised to reach a just decision. This power is exercisable at any time.

(5) In the present case, the order passed by the learned trial court is for the just decision of the case. It is not that the prosecution has failed to discharge its obligation to get compared the questioned thumb impression and the specimen thumb impression of Smt. Harbans Kaur. They got the report from the finger prints division of the C.F.S.L., a government agency; whereas the report submitted by the accused in defense is from a private hand writing and finger prints expert, Mr. M.S. Walia. In view of these two contradictory reports, it was thought proper for the just decision of the case that the court ordered that the questioned thumb impression and the specimen thumb impression be got examined in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Chandigarh. The trial has not yet concluded and still the arguments are to be heard. Court can pass such an order at any stage of the trial before it is concluded. It is not a case of reopening the investigation to the disadvantage of the accused or permitting additional evidence. How can the accused say that the report of the hand writing expert upon which he has relied would be accepted by the Court when the report from the C.F.S.L. is contradictory.

(6) In view of the two contradictory reports, i.e. one filed by the prosecution and the other filed by the defense, the Court thought it expedient to get the questioned thumb impression and the specimen thumb impression of Smt. Harbans Kaur examined from the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not helpful to him in the present circumstances of the case. The order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is for the just decision of the case and there is no illegality or infirmity in the said order. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.