Report No. 25
Summary of Case-Law as to Value of Reports of Chemical Examiner, etc.
(a) In the case of Gajrani (Mst.) v. Emperor, AIR 1933 All 394 (398, 399) it was held that the Chemical Examiner, in giving the report that the contents of a dhoti were duly examined by him "with the result that arsenic was detected in the (lb) but not in the remaining articles The Reinsch's test was used", should have also mentioned the precautions which he took to ensure that arsenic was not present in the laboratory material used in the experiment. It was further observed, that the officer in his report should have stated the grounds of his opinion. These objections, however, did not relate to the admissibility of the report in evidence but to its value. This is clear from the following observations in the judgment:-
"In India the Chemical Examiner merely tenders a report and he does not appear to give evidence. It is extremely desirable that his report should be full and complete and take the place of evidence which he would give if he were called to Court as a witness.".
(b) In Ramkaran Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Nag 13 (14), the oral evidence of an Excise Sub-Inspector stating that certain liquor was illicit, was criticised in these words:-
"No doubt that the Excise Sub-Inspector is an expert in his own Department and is able to distinguish liquor. But the Court should have under section 51, Evidence Act, ascertained the grounds on which his opinion was based, so as to test it.".
(c) On a similar provision in a State Act, it has been held that the certificate of the officer concerned should contain the factual data prescribed by the statute. Otherwise it cannot be acted upon1.
(d) Reference may also be made to a recent Supreme Court decision in which it was pointed out that the Chemical Examiner, in examining blood stains, should indicate the number of blood2 stains discovered by him.
(e) See also the Bombay and Gujarat decisions separately cited3.
(f) See also the undernoted case4. All these cases, however, relate to the value to be attached to the report of the officer concerned, which necessarily must depend on the facts of each case and do not really assist in the solution of the problem under consideration.
1. State v. Sahati Ram, AIR 1958 All 34 (DB).
2. Prabhu v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 51.
3. See App IV.
4. Behram v. Emp., AIR 1944 Born 321 (323).