//
archives

Forensic science

This tag is associated with 3 posts

Whether the absence of a viscera report is fatal to the prosecution ? – No.; Whether the punishment can be given under sec. 304 B and sec.306 I.P.C. ? – Yes = Bhupendra .…..Appellant Versus State of Madhya Pradesh …..Respondent= Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40956

Whether the absence of a viscera report is fatal to the prosecution ? – No.; Whether the punishment can be given under sec. 304 B and sec.306 I.P.C. ? – Yes =   Absence of a viscera report = 22.   Normally,  the  viscera  are  preserved  and  submitted  for  chemical analysis under the  following  circumstances:  (1) … Continue reading

service matter – seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 10.4.2007 passed by the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal was pleased to direct the State of U.P. to consider the case of the respondents for promotion on the post of Assistant Director and grant them all consequential benefits if found suitable. The High Court vide its impugned judgment and order dated 5.9.2007 was pleased to dismiss both the writ petitions preferred by the State of U.P. after recording a finding that the Rules of U.P. Forensic Science Laboratories Technical Officers’ Service (First Amendment) Rules 1990 dated 15.9.1990 which were published in the U.P. Government Gazette on 20.10.1990 will be deemed to be enforced from the date when they were duly published in the U.P. Government Gazette and not from the date when the rules were prepared and passed by the Government. As a consequence of this finding, it was held by the High Court as also the Tribunal that the Respondent/claimant-officials were duly eligible and qualified for consideration of their claim for promotion on the posts of Assistant Director Forensic Science as they had acquired the requisite years of experience for promotion by the time the rules were published in the gazette. – As a consequence of the aforesaid analysis, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was right in taking the view that the respondents were eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director under the Rules of 1987 against 25 per cent quota to be filled in by promotion as they satisfied the conditions of five years of requisite experience on the post of Scientific Officer if the experience were to be counted from the date of publication of the Rules in the U.P. Government Gazette. But besides the above, it cannot be overlooked that even if it were to be assumed that the respondents had not completed five years of experience on the post of Scientific Officer for any reason whatsoever making them ineligible for consideration of further promotion, they also had the statutory protection and benefit of the proviso to the said Rule 5 which laid down that where permanent scientific officers were not available for absorption under the 25% quota, such temporary and officiating personnel were also to be considered for promotion to the said posts who were functioning on permanent basis on the next lower post. It is an admitted position that the respondents had already been confirmed on the next lower post when they were promoted to the post of Scientific Officers and as they were entitled to the benefit of the proviso which laid down that even the temporary scientific officers who are permanent on next below post may also be considered for the purpose of promotion, the Respondents had a right to be considered for promotion since they were continuing on the post of Scientific Officer and had completed five years even before the Amended Rules came into effect on 20.10.1990 which laid down that all post of Assistant Directors would be filled by direct recruitment. Thus, for this additional and sure shot reason as also for the reasons which have been assigned by the High Court, we find no infirmity in the orders of the High Court as also the Tribunal which had held in favour of the respondents directing the appellant/State of U.P. to consider their eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Director Forensic Science and grant them the consequential benefit if found eligible. 16. We thus, find no substance in these appeals filed by the appellant/State of U.P. and consequently dismiss them but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.

Page 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2208-2209 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7441-7442/2008) State of U.P. & Ors. …Appellants Versus Mahesh Narain Etc. … Respondents J U D G M E N T GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant-State of Uttar … Continue reading

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.13 r.10 – Genuineness of a deed challenged before civil court – Initiation of criminal proceedings also – In criminal proceeding deed sent for examination of signature and thumb, impression of the person challenging it, to forensic expert – Plaintiffs application calling for forensic report regarding handwriting allowed – But application calling for report regarding thumb impression dismissed – Held: Dismissal of the later application not justified – If bringing on record a document is essential for proving a case, ordinarily the same should not be refused – The procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at just decision must be encouraged. Appellant and respondents were co-sharers. Allegedly they entered into a deed of partition. Appellant filed a suit questioning the genuineness of the deed. He also lodged an FIR in that regard. In the criminal proceedings, the partition deed was sent for examination of signature and thumb impression of the appellant. In the pending suit, appellant filed an application for calling for the report of forensic report from the court of Judicial Magistrate as regards purported signature and the same was allowed. Thereafter he filed another application for calling for the forensic report regarding the thumb impression. Trial court rejected the application on the ground that the application did not furnish requisite particulars and Order 13 Rule 10 CPC did not empower civil court to direct production of document from the custody of police. An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. =Allowing the appeal, the court HELD: 1.1. If bringing on record a document is essential for proving the case by a party, ordinarily the same should not be refused; the Court’s duty being to find out the truth. The procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at a just decision must be encouraged. The court in the said process, however, would not encourage any fishing enquiry. It would also not assist a party in procuring a document which he should have himself filed. [Para 12] [668-D, E] 1.2. There cannot furthermore be any doubt that by calling for such documents, the court shall not bring about a situation whereby a criminal proceeding would remain stayed as it is a well settled principle of law that where a civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding is pending, the latter shall get primacy. [Para 13] [668-F] 1.4. In a civil suit, a document has to be proved. The report of an expert is also required to be brought on record in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act. Having regard to the provisions contained in Order XIII, Rule 8 CPC, the civil court would furthermore be entitled to substitute the original document by a certified copy. Therefore, the original document could have been called for. [Para 14] [669-G] Union of India and Anr. v. The State and Anr. 1961 XLII ITR 753; Kailash v. Nanhku and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480 and Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Anr. (2006) 1 SCC 75, relied on. Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dessi and Ors. AIR 1955 SC 566 and Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi (2004) 1 SCC 438, referred to. 2.1. In view of the fact that appellants in their application disclosed that a First Information Report was lodged on 1.11.2003 against the defendants. The same was registered as Crime No.699/03; that the original partition deed dated 28.11.2002 was sent to the Director, Forensic Science Department along with appellant’s admitted signatures by the court of Judicial Magistrate, at the request of the Investigating Officer and that plaintiffs have come to learn that a report of the expert was also filed therein in regard to the thumb impression of the appellants, trial Judge, committed a manifest error in holding that requisite particulars have not been furnished. [Paras 9 and 10] [667-F-G; 668-A-B] 2.2. Trial Judge himself had allowed a similar application so far as the opinion of the handwriting expert was concerned. It is, therefore, difficult to comprehend as to on what basis a similar prayer made by the appellant in regard to the opinion of the finger print expert could be held to be not maintainable. [Para 11] [668-C] Case Law Reference: AIR 1955 SC 566 Referred to. Para 13 (2004) 1 SCC 438 Referred to. Para 13 1961 XLII ITR 753 Relied on. Para 14 (2005) 4 SCC 480 Relied on. Para 14 (2006) 1 SCC 75 Relied on. Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2243 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 5.1.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in C.R.P.P.D No. 559 of 2005. Vijay Kumar, C. Jayaraj and Malini Poduval for the Appellants. V. Prabhakar, Ramjee Prasad and Revathy Raghavan for the Respondents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2243 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5026 of 2007) Lakshmi & Anr. … Appellants Versus Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors. … Respondents JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. `Procedural Mechanics’ involving interpretation of Order XIII Rule 10 of … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,607 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com