- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) This revision has been preferred against the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge, (Prohibition of Corruption Act), Meerut in Case No. 13 of 2006, State Vs. Gajraj Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 237/2005 under Section 7/13 (1) D read with Section 13 (2) Prohibition of Corruption Act, Police Station Jani, District Meerut by which he has rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist.
(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the revisionist that initially, an application was moved before the trial court to summon the hand writing expert, which is at page 45 of the affidavit filed in support of the present criminal revision but the court declined to allow production of the hand writing expert in defence. The counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance in the case of Natasha Singh Vs. C.B.I. (State),2013 3 JIC 312, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down as under:- "17. ...The third witness was a hand-writing expert, and it was necessary for the defence to examine him regarding the correctness of the signatures of the appellant and others, particularly with respect to the signatures of the appellant. 18. Undoubtedly, an application filed under Section 311, Cr.P.C. must be allowed if fresh evidence is being produced to facilitate a just decision, however, in the instant case, the learned Trial Court prejudged the evidence of the witness sought to be examined by the appellant, and thereby cause grave and material prejudice to the appellant as regards her defence, which tantamounts to a flagrant violation of the principles of law governing the production of such evidence in keeping with the provisions of Section 311, Cr.P.C. By doing so, the Trial Court reached the conclusion that the production of such evidence by the defence was not essential to facilitate a just decision of the case. Such an assumption is wholly misconceived, and is not tenable in law as the accused has every right to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The Court must examine whether such additional evidence is necessary to facilitate a just and proper decision of the case. The examination of the hand-writing expert may therefore be necessary to rebut the evidence of Rabi Lal Thapa (PW. 40), and a request made for his examination ought not to have been rejected on the sole ground that the opinion of the hand-writing expert would not be conclusive. In such a situation, the only issue that ought to have been considered by the Courts below, is whether the evidence proposed to be adduced was relevant or not. Identical is the position regarding the Panchnama witness, and the Court is justified in weighing evidence, only and only once the same has been laid before it and brought on record. Mr. B.B. Sharma, thus, may be in a position to depose with respect to wehter the documents alleged to have been found, or to have been seized, were actually recovered or not, and therefore, from the point of view of the appellant, his examination might prove to be essential and imperative for facilitating a just decision of the case.";