R.S. Sarkaria, J. - (1.) These three revisions are directed against the order of acquittal of three respondents, namely, Malik Singh Cheema, Lehmber Singh and Pal Singh passed by the Appellate Court. These three respondents were tried for offences under Ss. 465, 466, 468, 471, 120B IPC by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur. Upon conviction, they were sentenced to suffer RI for one year under each of the offence alleged against them. They, however, succeeded in their appeal filed before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which is now impugned through these three separate revision petitions, which are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring to the trial Court judgment would say that the said Court was justified in relying upon a report, Ex.PH, given by a Scientific Officer, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, which, in terms of Sec. 293 Cr.P.C., was rightly held admissible per -se by the trial Court. The Appellate Court, however, found that report of an hand -writing expert, even if given by officer of the Forensic Science Laboratory, would not be per -se admissible and hence, would not be of any help to the prosecution as was held by the trial Court. This finding of the Appellate Court is seriously challenged by the counsel for the petitioner. The counsel submits that this aspect would require consideration. Learned Counsel also did make an attempt to draw my attention to the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses but he gave up this aspect and did not dispute the fact that re -appreciation of evidence may not fall within the scope of the revisional jurisdiction. He accordingly confined his submission to the sole ground relating to admissibility of Ex.PH, which is the report of hand -writing expert prepared by the Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory.
(3.) Reference to Sec. 293 Cr.P.C. would show that certain types of reports given by officers working at Forensic Science Laboratory are per -se admissible. Sec. 293(4) says that this Sec. applies to the following Government Scientific Experts, namely: (a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government; (b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives; (c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau; (d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay; (e) the Director, [Deputy Director or Assistant Director] of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory; (f) the Serologist to the Government.;