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

1. The present petition is filed by the State of Maharashtra

through Pahur Police Station, District Jalgaon, challenging the order

dated 02.04.2026 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2 and

Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, whereby the application filed by

the prosecution under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 seeking permission to examine Chemical Analyser

Mr. G. B. Khade as a prosecution witness came to be rejected.

2. Learned APP for the petitioner-State submits that the

prosecution had earlier filed an application under Section 293(1) of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking exhibition of the

Chemical Analyser’s reports. After hearing the learned Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the learned Trial Court allowed the said application and exhibited the Chemical Analyser’s reports subject to objections raised by the defence.

3. Learned APP further submits that in view of the objections

raised by the accused, it became necessary for the prosecution to

examine the concerned Chemical Analyser for formally proving the

reports already exhibited before the Trial Court. It is therefore

submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the

application filed under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 for examining the Chemical Analyser as a witness.

4. The accused filed reply to application Exhibit-139 and strongly

opposed the same on the ground that the trial has already been made

time-bound pursuant to the directions issued by this Court and that

the matter was being listed twice a week for expeditious disposal. It

was further contended that the matter is presently fixed for recording

the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

5. It was also pointed out that the prosecution had already

examined its last witness i.e. PW-14 – the Investigating Officer, on

31.03.2026 and thereafter closed the prosecution evidence. Though

the Chemical Analyser’s reports were exhibited on the same date, the

prosecution did not seek examination of the Chemical Analyser

before closure of evidence. According to the accused, the present

application filed by the prosecution was only intended to prolong the

trial proceedings, which are already directed to be expedited by this

Court. Hence, rejection of the application was sought.

6. The learned Trial Court, after considering the application filed

by the prosecution as well as the objections raised by the accused,

rejected the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. Learned APP submits that the impugned order

suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as the learned Trial

Court failed to consider that examination of the Chemical Analyser

was necessary for proving the Chemical Analyser’s reports already

exhibited on record. It is therefore submitted that the impugned

order is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

7. I have carefully gone through the impugned order dated

02.04.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has taken into consideration that the prosecution had already filed an application on 31.01.2026 for exhibiting the Chemical Analyser’s reports and the same were exhibited as Exhibits-135 and 136 after allowing the said application.

8. 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.

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.

11. The petition is devoid of merit and substance and is

accordingly rejected.

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )