Dismissed

Kamarul v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2024CRLR/2594/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 2594 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court rejected the revisionist's challenge against the lower court's refusal to summon a forensic scientist to explain the delay in analyzing seized whisky samples. The Court held that the chemical analysis report is admissible evidence and the trial court's discretion was not exercised arbitrarily.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as it lacked merit.

Kamarul vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:124091

¶2

Court No. - 84

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2594 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Kamarul Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sharad Saran Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

1-Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

2-This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist against the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Kaushambi in S.T. No. 217 of 2019 (State vs. Kamarul and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 463 of 2019, under Sections 272, 273 I.P.C. and Section 60 Excise Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi whereby the application of the accused-revisionist for summoning the Senior Scientist of Forensic Science Laboratory, Prayagraj has been rejected.

¶8

3-The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is an accused and is facing trial. After seizure of huge quantity of Imperial Blue Whisky, the samples were drawn and the same were sent to the laboratory for chemical analysis. In the report, it is mentioned interalia that out of four samples, two samples were examined. The samples were received in the laboratory on 04.10.2019 but same was examined on 24.07.2021, which is suspicious and fake. Hence, the application for summoning the Senior Scientist of laboratory concerned was moved for the just decision of the case but the same has been illegally

¶9

rejected.

¶10

4-On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist by contending that there is no valid and legal basis to presume that analysis report is suspicious and fake.

¶11

5-Having heard the submission of learned counsel parties and perusing the record, I find that in view of Section 293 Cr.P.C., the report of chemical analyst is admissible in evidence. The revisionist has not filed the report of chemical analysis. Apart from this, it is the discretion of the trial court to summon a Chemical Analyst in appropriate case only, if it appears to the trial court that his evidence is necessary for the just decision of the case. In the light of provisions of Section 293 Cr.P.C., no case for interference is made out.

¶12

6-The impugned order dated 03.04.2024 is flawless. The Criminal Revision lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 1.8.2024 Saurabh

¶14

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamarul v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamarul v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra vs State of Up

Suraj Soni vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Noor Mohammad and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Om Prakash Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Gajendra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others