Debi Singh Tewatia, J. - (1.) THIS is recommended revision petition directed against the order dated 19th April, 1973, where by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Moga, rejected the prayer of the accused -petitioner for having a separate sample of opium sent for chemical analysis to the Chemical Analyst, Calcutta, for opinion. The learned Additional Sessions Judge. Faridkot, relying on Inder Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1973 Ch. L.R. 561 has come to the conclusion that the order of the learned Magistrate was erroneous and deserves to be set aside.
(2.) MR . Karnall Singh appearing for the petitioner has sought to sustain the recommendation with the help of two other decisions of this Court reported in Madan Lal v. The State of Punjab, (1971) 73 P.L.R. 107 and Surjit Singh v. The State of Punjab, (1972) 74 P.L.R. 830. In all the three decisions, I do not find any discussion of the matter in detail and the reasoning that an accused is entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal of the evidence of the Chemical Analyst produced by the prosecution, does not appear to be convincing, for, in my opinion, the public institutions like Forensic Science Laboratory, Finger Print Bureau, or the Chemical Analyst give expert opinion, which may go in favour of the prosecution or in favour of the accused. It would not be right to give a right to the accused to have a separate sample examined by a Chemical Analyst of the same standing either in the very state or in some other state. Of course, an appeal to a specialist of higher standing, as is recognised by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, is a different matter. Since the matter is such that it is likely to recur time again, it would be desirable to have an authoritative decision instead of recording dissent form the decisions of the learned Single Judges that have been cited. I, therefore, direct that the papers of this case be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH D.S. Tewatia, J.
(3.) THIS recommended revision petition came up before me in the first instance. I referred it to a larger Bench and that is how it has been placed before us.;