AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sandeep Sharma, J.
Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the passing of order dated 18.8.2018, whereby learned Special Judge-II Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., dismissed
the application having been filed by the petitionerâ€" accused (herein after referred to as the accused), praying therein for sending the sample seal
Ext.PW7/B dated 18.4.2018, for comparison of the signature of the accused to some expert, accused has approached this Court in the instant
proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.PC.
Accused, who is behind bars since 18.3.2017, in case FIR No. 47/2017, dated 18.3.2017, under Sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act registered at PS
Kullu, H.P., filed an application in the court of learned Special Judge, Kullu, H.P., praying therein for sending the sample sealExt.PW7/B dated
18.4.2018, for comparison of his signatures to some expert. He averred in the application that during trial, it transpired that sample seal Ext.PW7/B
dated 18.4.2018, is not signed by him, whereas I.O. in his statement recorded before the court below, claimed that accused had appended his signature
on the sample seal. Accused, also claimed before the court below that Investigating Officer pressurized him to append his signature on Ext.PW7/B, in
the police station. In the aforesaid background, accused prayed before the court below that for fair and just adjudication of the case, comparison of
signature of the accused on the sample seal Ext.PW7/B dated 18.4.2018, by an expert is necessary. Apart from above, accused also denied his
signature upon Ext.PW7/B, while getting his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC.
Aforesaid application came to be resisted and contested by the respondent-State, by way of written reply, wherein it specifically denied that
signatures of the accused, were obtained by the Investigating Officer on the memo Ext.PW7/C, under coercion. Respondent claimed that signatures
of the accused were obtained by the Investigating Officer on sample seal taken on separate piece of cloth on spot after sealing the contraband.
Respondent also claimed that application has been moved at a belated stage to protract the trial and as such, there is no necessity for sending the
signatures of the accused to the expert. Moreover, both the memos were signed by the accused at that relevant time on the spot.
Learned court below on the basis of aforesaid pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, dismissed the application having been filed by
the accused. Learned court while dismissing the application arrived at a conclusion that careful perusal of record reveals that signatures of the
accused were obtained by the Investigating Officer on sample seal taken on separate piece of cloth on the spot after sealing the contraband. Learned
court below further arrived at a conclusion that statement of the accused has already been recorded and case is fixed for defence evidence and at this
stage, application having been filed by the accused cannot be allowed because same has been filed with sole motive to prolong the trial.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as gone through the records of the case.
Application having been filed by the accused has been dismissed by the court below solely on the ground that same has been filed at a belated stage
with a view to protract the trial, but it is not in dispute that accused is already behind the bars since 18.3.2017, and as such, this Court is in agreement
with Mr. P.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that accused would not gain anything by delaying the trial, rather, he would be
happy and satisfied in case trial is concluded at the earliest.
Otherwise also, reasoning rendered by the court below while dismissing the application having been filed by the accused, does not appear to be
plausible because court below has blindly accepted the statement of Investigating Officer, wherein he has stated that accused had appended his
signature on memo Ext.PW7/B.
This Court further finds from the record that specific suggestion has been put to Investigating Officer by the defence that accused had not put his
signature on memo Ext.PW7/B and as such, it cannot be said that application for sending the signature of the accused to the expert is an afterthought.
Record further reveals that sole independent witness associated by the prosecution at the time of recovery has turned hostile. True it is that there are
other spot witnesses, but this court is of the view that no prejudice, whatsoever, would be caused to the opposite party, in case prayer made in the
application for sending the signatures of the accused for comparison to the expert is accepted, rather opinion, if any, rendered by the expert would be
helpful and beneficial for the court below to arrive at just and fair decision of the case. Moreover, by now it is well settled that accused should get fair
chance to prove his/her innocence, especially in a case, where he /she, if held guilty, would be served with severe punishment as is in the present case
i.e. NDPS Act.
In the case at hand, admittedly, petitioner is facing trial for an offence, which may entail him punishment i.e. imprisonment for a minimum of ten
years. By way of application, the accused is simply seeking comparison of his signatures by an expert, which according to the prosecution is not
necessary, but it has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this court that in a criminal trial, prosecution has to be absolutely
fair and impartial because main purpose of criminal trial is not to get someone convicted, rather its object is to discover truth and punish the accused, if
found guilty. In V.K. Sasikala v. State (2012) 9 SCC 771, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that courts must ensure fairness of the investigative
process so as to maintain the citizens’ rights under Articles 19 and 21 and also active role of the court in a criminal trial. In the aforesaid judgment,
it has been categorically held that it is the responsibility of the investigating agency as well as of Court to ensure that every investigation is fair and
does not erode the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. (See. Cr.MMO No. 484 of 2017 decided on 16.4.2018, titled as Ishwar
Dass v. State of Himacahl Pradesh)
Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 18.8.2018, passed by the court below, is set-aside and
court below is directed to send the specimen signature of the accused to the expert for getting the same compared with the alleged signatures of the
accused on sample seal Ext.PW7/B. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.