Forensic Science Laboratory's Report Need Not Be Proved By Calling Its Director As It A Public Document U/S 293 CrPC & Hence Admissible: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court recently held that since a report of State Forensic Science Laboratory is admissible in evidence (as per the provision of Section 293 Cr.P.C.), therefore, there is no requirement to call the Director of that laboratory to get the same proved. The Bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Tyagi was hearing an appeal of a Spain national accused/appellant against the Judgment...
The Allahabad High Court recently held that since a report of State Forensic Science Laboratory is admissible in evidence (as per the provision of Section 293 Cr.P.C.), therefore, there is no requirement to call the Director of that laboratory to get the same proved.
The Bench of Justice Ajai Kumar Tyagi was hearing an appeal of a Spain national accused/appellant against the Judgment and order of conviction of the lower court under the NDPS Act from whose trolley-bag 10 kg. charas was recovered.
Case in brief
10 kg. charas was recovered from the trolley bag of the accused- and after the recovery, the police personnel attempted to take the personal search of the accused.
An option was given to the accused that if he desired so, his search could be taken before any Gazetted Officer, however, he refused to opt for that option and said that police personnel may take his personal search for which he gave his consent also in writing.
Thereafter, 100 gm sample was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Varanasi, for chemical examination and rest of the substance was sealed separately.
Submissions put forth
It was argued by the appellant accused that there was no compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985, inasmuch as the offer was given to him for searching in presence of a gazetted officer and he declined the offer, but the same was not corroborated by any independent witness.
It was also submitted that before searching the belongings of the accused, he was not given option to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
Court's observations
At the outset, the court observed that the provision of Section 50 of the Act stands attracted in case of personal search and not in the case where the search was given effect otherwise than from the personal search of the accused.
In the instant case, 10 kg. charas was recovered from the trolley-bag of the accused-appellant and it was not recovered from the person of the accused and hence, the Court observed thus:
"Although, neither the police was acting on prior information nor charas was recovered from his person, it was recovered from his trolley-bag, therefore, it cannot be said that there was contravention and noncompliance of Section 50 of the Act, 1985."
Regarding the admissibility of the Laboratory report confirming that the sample seized from the trolley bag was Charas or not, the Court held thus:
"as per the provision of Section 293 Cr.P.C., the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory is admissible in evidence and there is no requirement to call the Director of that laboratory to get the report proved. The report on record shows that the sample sent to it was found to be charas.."
In view of the above, the Court reached a definite conclusion that prosecution proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt and that the appellant had been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial court.
Case title - Jose Luis Quintanilla Sacristan v. State of U.P
Read Order