IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8254 of 2008 JAWAHAR SAH, SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-HATTA, P.S. CHAINPUR, DISTRICT- KAIMUR ---- PETITIONER Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ---- OPP.PARTY ----------- For the petitioner : M/S Ravi Shankar Sahay, and Anand Kumar Chaudhary,Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. ------------ O R D E R The sole F.I.R. named accused of Chainpur P.S. Case no.49 of 2003, G.R.No.761 of 2003, registered under Sections 8 (c) and 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act,1985 (hereinafter referred to as “ the N.D.P.S. Act” ) has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 16.1.2008 passed therein by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua , whereby he has refused to accede to the prayer of the defence to call officials of the Forensic Science Laboratory ,Patna, as a witness. It appears that during the stage of prosecution evidence ,on a day when the accused was absent and no pairvi had been done on his behalf, by order dated 10.11.2006, the trial court marked the report sent by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, as Exhibit 4 holding it to be a public document. Later on, a petition was filed by the defence with a prayer to direct the Forensic Science Laboratory Officials to come in the court and also for issuing summons against them. This prayer was ceremoniously rejected in view of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Section 294 Cr.P.C. Provides that a document of a formal - 2 - nature the genuineness of which is not disputed may be proved without the necessity of proof of signature, and it requires, for this purpose, each party to produce a list of documents calling upon the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of them. The obvious purpose of Section 294 Cr.P.C. is to accelerate the pace of the trial by avoiding the time being wasted in examining the signatory of the document. Even if the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is considered to be a public document, though not holding it to be so, the court was duty bound to have marked the same as an exhibit in the presence of the accused and if the accused was represented , then in the presence of his lawyer after giving an opportunity to any of them to admit or deny the genuineness of that document There is nothing on record to show that before the exhibiting of the document the accused or his lawyer was called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of that document. As the prosecution did not strictly comply with the provisions of Section 294 Cr.P.C. the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory ought not to have been marked. Such hasty steps only cause hindrance to the concept of the fair trial. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 19th December,2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.