Section 293 CrPC: what it does, and what it does not
Section 293 CrPC permits reports of specified Government scientific experts, including Chemical Examiners, to be used as evidence in inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. The statutory object is procedural convenience: it dispenses with the routine necessity of calling the expert in every case merely to prove the contents of an official scientific report.
But admissibility is not the same as automatic conclusiveness. The recent Supreme Court ruling in Kailas v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 1117, confirms that there is no requirement of law that the Chemical Examiner must be examined in every case if the report is otherwise admissible under Section 293 CrPC. At the same time, that decision does not mean that every trial court must blindly rely upon the report for all purposes or that oral examination can never become necessary.
Supreme Court: examination is not mandatory in every case
The significance of Kailas lies in its clear rejection of a rigid rule that non-examination of the Chemical Examiner is always fatal. The Supreme Court treated the Chemical Examiner’s report as admissible under Section 293 and disapproved the idea that retrial must follow merely because the analyst had not been examined. In effect, the Court reaffirmed that Section 293 is a substantive statutory exception to the ordinary insistence on formal proof.
This position is important for Sessions Judges because it avoids needless formalism. If the report is duly covered by Section 293 and no substantial fairness concern arises, the prosecution need not be compelled to examine the Chemical Analyser simply as a ritual. A trial court therefore does not commit illegality merely by receiving such a report in evidence without oral examination of the expert.
Bombay High Court: no blind reliance on untested science
The recent Bombay High Court decision in Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi v. State of Maharashtra, 2026:BHC-AS:11660-DB, adds a necessary caution. The Court held that where chemical analysis and DNA reports formed a crucial part of the prosecution case, failure to summon and examine the concerned scientific experts resulted in denial of fair opportunity to the accused and vitiated the trial. The Court also directed that after such additional scientific evidence is recorded, the statements of the accused under Section 313 CrPC must be recorded afresh.
The correct reading of Tejas is not that every Chemical Analyser report requires oral proof. Rather, the decision teaches that when the prosecution seeks to use such scientific material as a serious incriminating link, the court must ensure fairness before placing decisive reliance upon it. Thus, Kailas and Tejas operate in different but compatible fields: one concerns admissibility without mandatory oral proof, while the other warns against conviction founded on crucial untested forensic material.
Is the Sessions Court bound to exhibit the report?
Strictly speaking, no mechanical rule of compulsion exists. Section 293 says that the report “may be used as evidence,” which is an enabling formulation. If the report satisfies the statutory description, the court may receive it in evidence without insisting on routine examination of the expert; but the court must still decide how much weight to attach to it and whether justice requires that the expert be called.
Therefore, the better formulation for trial courts is this: the report is ordinarily admissible under Section 293, but its use is not beyond scrutiny. A Sessions Judge should distinguish between reception of the document, its evidentiary value, and the necessity of oral examination in the circumstances of the case.
What is the effect of exhibiting the report “subject to objection”?
Exhibiting a Chemical Analyser report subject to objection does not make the controversy disappear. It generally means that the document is taken on record while questions about proof, reliance, prejudice, or evidentiary weight remain open for later determination. Such an order is procedural and provisional in effect; it is not a final declaration that the contents stand accepted for all purposes.
At the same time, once the prosecution has itself invoked Section 293 and secured exhibition of the report, it becomes difficult to justify a later claim that the expert must now be called merely to “prove” the very report already treated as admissible. Unless the court independently finds the expert’s evidence essential, a belated request of that kind may reasonably appear to be an effort to strengthen the prosecution case after closure.
Section 311 CrPC: wide power, but not a cure for omissions
Section 311 CrPC gives the criminal court broad power to summon, examine, recall, or re-examine any person at any stage if the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that this power, though wide, is discretionary and cannot be exercised to fill lacunae or on vague grounds.
The governing test is whether refusal to call the witness would risk failure of justice, not whether one side would like a stronger evidentiary position. Thus, closure of prosecution evidence is not an absolute bar, but reopening after closure is not to be granted casually, especially when the omission was within the prosecution’s control from the beginning.
Can the prosecution call the Chemical Analyser after closing its case?
Ordinarily, not as a matter of right. If the prosecution has already relied on Section 293, secured exhibition of the report, examined its remaining witnesses, and closed its evidence, a later application under Section 311 to call the Chemical Analyser will generally require a clear showing of necessity. Mere desirability, tactical convenience, or a wish to neutralise objections is not enough.
This is especially so where the defence is not itself demanding that the expert be summoned. The defence’s silence does not create a positive right in favour of the prosecution to reopen the case. The central question remains whether the court itself considers the evidence essential for a just decision.
When refusal of such an application is proper
A Sessions Judge would ordinarily be justified in rejecting the prosecution’s late request where these features are present:
-
The Chemical Analyser report has already been exhibited under Section 293 CrPC.
-
The prosecution had adequate earlier opportunity to call the expert and chose not to do so.
-
Prosecution evidence has been closed and the trial has progressed to Section 313 CrPC.
-
The application gives no compelling reason showing why the expert’s evidence has suddenly become indispensable.
-
Allowing the request would delay a custody trial or defeat time-bound directions without clear necessity.
On such facts, rejection of the Section 311 application would usually reflect proper judicial discipline rather than denial of justice.
When calling the expert may still be necessary
There may, however, be exceptional cases where the court itself cannot safely proceed without oral scientific evidence. If the report is central to the identity of the substance, appears technically unclear, contains internal inconsistency, or is intended to serve as a decisive incriminating link, the court may permit summoning of the expert even at a later stage. But such permission should rest on recorded reasons showing that the witness is essential for a just decision and not merely useful to the prosecution.
If the expert is examined at that late stage, the defence must receive full right of cross-examination, and any additional incriminating material emerging from that evidence must be put to the accused in a fresh or supplementary statement under Section 313 CrPC.
A practical note on Section 313 CrPC
Trial courts should not overlook the Section 313 consequence of late forensic evidence. If further scientific testimony is brought on record after the accused has already been examined, fairness requires that the new incriminating material be specifically put to the accused. This requirement becomes more important in serious sessions cases where the accused is in custody and the liberty interest is immediate.
The sound judicial approach
The correct approach for a Sessions Judge may therefore be summed up in four steps:
-
Receive the Chemical Analyser report under Section 293 if it satisfies the statute.
-
Decide separately whether oral examination of the expert is necessary in the facts of the case.
-
Treat a late prosecution request under Section 311 with caution, asking whether the evidence is essential or merely curative of a prosecutorial lapse.
-
If additional expert evidence is allowed after the Section 313 stage, record a fresh Section 313 statement before final adjudication.
The usual answer in the common trial scenario
Where the prosecution has already secured exhibition of the Chemical Analyser report under Section 293, thereafter closed its evidence, and later seeks to call the Chemical Analyser without showing compelling necessity, the proper order will ordinarily be to reject the application under Section 311 CrPC. Such rejection is especially justified where the trial is time-bound, the accused is in custody, and the move appears designed more to reinforce the prosecution case than to avert failure of justice.
The caution of the Bombay High Court remains important at the stage of final appreciation: if the trial court proposes to place decisive reliance on the scientific report as a crucial link, it must ensure that fairness requirements are not sacrificed. But that does not convert Section 311 into an automatic post-closure remedy for the prosecution.
Final takeaway
A Chemical Analyser report under Section 293 CrPC is neither worthless without oral proof nor untouchable once exhibited. It is admissible evidence under a statutory rule of convenience, but its later use, especially after closure of prosecution evidence, remains subject to judicial control, fairness, and the disciplined exercise of discretion under Sections 311 and 313 CrPC.