IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 120 of 2010 Date of Decision: 4th June, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Budh Ram. ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been preferred by petitioner herein challenging the order of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, allowing the application moved by prosecution under Section 173 (8) of Code of Criminal Procedure for examination of samples of purported contraband involved in the offence. 2. The prosecution filed an application under the provisions noticed above, praying that the permission may be granted to send contraband purportedly recovered from the petitioner for Chemical Analyst to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Junga. It was stated that the previous sample which was 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 sent was only 25 grams and an objection has been taken by defence that this could not constitute a representative sample of the whole. The application was resisted by the defence on the ground that the prosecution now seeks leave to fill in the lacuna by gathering evidence for the prosecution. Learned Trial Court on consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, allowed the application and directed that the sample be sent for analysis. 3. The petitioner is now in revision. The primary ground taken is that the prosecution seeks to fill in the lacuna in prosecution evidence and is now resorting to send the sample to be analyzed only for the reason that such objection was taken in defence by the petitioner. 4. I do not intend to interfere in these proceedings at this stage. The learned trial court relied upon the decision in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat and others (2004) 5 SCC 347 holding:- “13. In Ram Lal Narang V. State (Delhi Admn.) it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the court. When defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this case, that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences found during course of proper investigation 3 is as much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the courts. In view of the aforesaid position in law, if there is necessity for further investigation, the same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice. We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case. Dealing with the impugned order, I can not persuade myself to hold that the Court directs the investigation to be carried out in a particular manner. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the present Revision Petition, which is dismissed as such. 3. It is clarified that the petitioner shall be given full opportunity of leading such other and further evidence in opposition the to report etc., which may be received from the Forensic Science Laboratory pursuant to the permission granted to the prosecution or other evidence challenging the authenticity of the analysis or the sample sent for analysis or such other evidence in his defence. June 04, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (KRS) Judge