Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, rejection of application U/S 311 of CRPC of Prosecution by Session Judge can be said to be legal and correct?

The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that in view of the provisions of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Chemical Analyser’s reports are admissible in evidence and can be read in evidence without formal examination of the Chemical Analyser. The reports being documents issued by a public servant in discharge of official duties carry a statutory presumption with regard to their authenticity. Therefore, there was no absolute necessity for the prosecution to examine the Chemical Analyser merely for proving the contents of the reports already exhibited on record.{Para 8}

9. The learned Trial Court has also taken into consideration the stage of the trial and the fact that the prosecution evidence had already been closed. The matter was thereafter fixed for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In such circumstances, the learned Trial Court was justified in holding that no sufficient ground was made out for exercising powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. In my considered opinion, no error, illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned Trial Court while rejecting the application preferred by the prosecution. The petitioner-State has failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 569 OF 2026

The State Of Maharashtra Vs  Gokul Gotiram Jadhav

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

DATED : 28.04.2026

PER COURT :

Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:21268

Print Page

Guide for Session Judges for appreciating evidence of CA Reports, FSL Report, DNA report and all scientific experts report in Sessions Trials

A forensic report often enters the courtroom with an aura of certainty. Once the Chemical Analyser or FSL states that blood matches, DNA corresponds, or a sample confirms a prosecution theory, the natural temptation is to treat the report as near-conclusive proof. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Najeeruddin v. State of U.P. is a powerful reminder that criminal courts must resist that temptation. A forensic report may be on record, and may even be formally admissible under Section 293 CrPC, yet it may still be legally unsafe to rely upon if the prosecution has not proved the source material, the chain of connection, and the accused has not been confronted with the incriminating contents under Section 313 CrPC.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether the Session Judge should permit calling of Chemical Analyser as witness when the case was fixed for judgment?

 It is, thus, clear that the provisions of Section 293 Cr.P.C. are applicable to the Chemical Analysers and Assistant Chemical Analysers /examiners. It is in this background and the legal provisions allowing the trial Court to use the report of Chemical Analyser as evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceedings, that the prosecution was under obligation to explain the reasons for moving the Court for summoning the Chemical Analyser, that too at a very belated stage when the case was closed for judgment. As such, in my considered opinion, the order of the trial Court directing issuance of summons to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory needs to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 127 /2012

Mukesh s/o Ramshankar Shivhare  Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: M.L.TAHALIYANI,J.

DATED : 26th September, 2012

Print Page

Whether Sessions Judge Should Permit Prosecution to Call Chemical Analyser After Closure of Evidence? A Practical Guide on Sections 293, 311 and 313 CrPC

 In criminal trials, few issues create more avoidable confusion than the handling of Chemical Analyser reports. Trial courts often confront a familiar sequence: the prosecution tenders a Chemical Analyser report under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the report is exhibited subject to objection, the prosecution closes its evidence, and thereafter seeks to call the Chemical Analyser under Section 311 CrPC. The real question is not merely whether the report is admissible, but whether a belated prosecution request to examine the expert should be allowed after closure, particularly when the case has reached the Section 313 stage.

Section 293 CrPC: what it does, and what it does not

Section 293 CrPC permits reports of specified Government scientific experts, including Chemical Examiners, to be used as evidence in inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. The statutory object is procedural convenience: it dispenses with the routine necessity of calling the expert in every case merely to prove the contents of an official scientific report.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Ballistic Report Forwarded By Lab Director Or Deputy/Assistant Director Under The Seal Is Admissible In Evidence U/S 293 of CrPC

 The decision of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram45is a complete answer to this submission. In an identical situation, this Court held that there is no illegality in the way the prosecution has obtained the ballistic report under Section 293. The relevant portion of the decision is as under:

“6. Secondly, the ground on which the High Court has thrown out the prosecution story is the report of the ballistic expert. The report of the ballistic expert (Ext. PX) was signed by one Junior Scientific Officer. According to the High Court, a Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) is not the officer enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, in the absence of his examination such report cannot be read in evidence. This reason of the High Court, in our view, is also fallacious. Firstly, the forensic science laboratory report (Ext. P-X) has been submitted under the signatures of a Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. There is no dispute that the report was submitted under the hand of a government scientific expert. Section 293(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a government scientific expert under the section, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under the Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. The High Court has completely overlooked the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 293 and arrived at a fallacious conclusion that a Junior Scientific Officer is not an officer enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 293. What sub-section (4) of Section 293 envisages is that the court is to accept the documents issued by any of the six officers enumerated therein as valid evidence without examining the author of the documents. xxx {Para 170}

171. In view of the fact that the ballistic report has come from the office of the Assistant Director bearing his seal and having considered the same in the context of Section 293(4) Cr.P.C., as explained by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram46 we are opinion that the Trial Court committed a serious error in rejecting the ballistic report and it was necessary and compelling for the High Court to reverse the finding of the Trial Court on this count also.

X. The rejection of the FSL (ballistic) report is another grave mistake of the Trial Court. The conclusion of the Trial Court that the ballistic report is inadmissible as it is not in consonance with the requirement of Section 293 Cr.P.C. is entirely wrong. We have explained this in detail. In an identical situation this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram51 has explained how the ballistic report is in complete compliance of the statutory provision. The High Court had to necessarily step in to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

Coram: UDAY UMESH LALIT; CJI., S. RAVINDRA BHAT; J., PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; J.

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 946-947 OF 2019; 

Dated: NOVEMBER 04, 2022 

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH CHANDEL Vs STATE OF U.P.

Author: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

Dated: NOVEMBER 04, 2022 

Print Page