1994 PLP 1697 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Arts. 59 & 61‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 510‑‑‑Report of Finger Print Expert‑‑‑Non‑calling of finger print expert in evidence to prove his report‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Held, though under S. 510 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 report of Finger Print Expert could be received in evidence without calling for expert as a witness, but in absence of such corresponding provisions in Civil Procedure Code or Qanun‑e‑Shahadat, opinion‑ of expert would not be ipso facto admissible to be accepted in evidence without calling for expert as witness‑‑‑Court, therefore, was not required to confirm expert's report on pattern of a Commission report.‑‑‑[Witness]. Muhammad Khan Khakwani for Petitioner. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 4th April, 1994, This revision petition is directed as against the judgment and order of the Court of, Civil Judge, D.I Khan dated 15‑5‑1993 vide he confirmed the Finger Print Expert's report and since parties had already closed their evidence he, therefore, proceeded to fix the case for arguments. He has earlier called for objections from the parties over the Finger Print Expert's report that the defendant did not file any objection and the plaintiff intended to file objections but he failed to file his objections on some 2/3 occasions.

2. Now the Finger Print Expert's report is an opinion of an expert as to the identity of finger impressions which has been acknowledged as a relevant fact under Article 59 of the Oanun‑e‑Shahadat, 1984. There was not to be called for objections/comments from the parties over the report of the Finger Print Expert.

3. True in section 510, Cr.P.C. there has been made provision to receive the Finger Print Expert's report in evidence without calling the expert as a witness. There has, however, not been found a corresponding provision in the '4 Code of Civil Procedure or the Law of Evidence itself that the opinion of an expert shall be ipso facto admissible to be accepted into evidence without calling for the expert as a witness. The learned trial Court was not required to confirm the expert's report on the pattern of a commission report. The impugned, order is, therefore, set asids. Case is sent back to the trial Court for proceeding in the case in accordance with law. Needless to point out that a party relying on the Finger Print Expert's report may call him as a witness to prove the report with opportunity to the other side to cross examine him or the Court may summon him as a Court witness with opportunity to the parties to cross examine the expert. The Finger Print Expert's report cannot, however, be accepted into evidence and confirmed in the manner as per impugned order. Revision petition is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. H.B.T./1558/P Revision allowed.