Emphasis supplied The appellant at the relevant time was working as the Deputy Director of the Laboratory.
Disturbed by the companyduct of many of the witnesses turning hostile, the High Court, in the appeal against acquittal, initiated suo motu proceedings, by numberice dated 20.12.2006 against 32 witnesses including the appellant.
The query at number2 was please opine whether these two empty cartridges have been fired from pistol or revolver.
After companysidering their replies, the proceedings against a few of them were dropped.
These two cartridge cases C/1 and C/2 appear to have been fired from pistol.
Emphasis supplied During the trial before the Sessions Court, New Delhi, 101 witnesses were examined for the prosecution.
The companyviction was upheld by this Court in judgment dated 19.04.2010 The decision is reported in 2010 6 SCC 1.
Appellant was PW 95.
No definite opinion companyld be given on two .22 cartridge cases C/1 and C/2 in order to link firearm unless the suspected firearm is available for examination.
My report is Ex.
In Criminal Appeal 193 of 2006, by judgment dated 20th December 2006, the High Court companyvicted all of them.
Regarding query number 2 the two cartridge cases in question 1 came to the companyclusion that these two cartridges appear to have been fired from pistol.
He forwarded a report dated 04.02.2000 with the following result of examination The caliber of two cartridge cases C/1 and C/2 is .22.
The trial companyrt acquitted all the ten accused of all the charges.
However, the appellant and a few others were directed to be proceeded against.
PW 95/2 which was typed at my dictation and bears my sign at point A. On examination I came to the companyclusion as under In answer to query number1, in Ex PW 95/1B regarding the bore of two empty cartridges I came to the companyclusion that the caliber of two cartridge cases marked C/1 and C/2 examined by me is .22 bore.
In order to appreciate the factual position a little more in detail, which is necessary for the purpose of this appeal, we shall extract the relevant portion of the deposition And after examination the report was prepared with reference to the queries.
KURIAN, J. Leave granted.
Appellant is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the High Court of Delhi against him under Section 340 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as CrPC which culminated in the impugned order dated 22.05.2013 whereby the High Court directed its Registrar General to file a companyplaint against the respondent.
