Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that just because an expert delivered his opinion such as, “a definite opinion in the case could be given only if the suspected firearm is available for examination. It is nobody’s case that scientifically an expert can give a definite opinion by only examining the cartridges as to whether they have been fired from the same firearm. It was the trial court which insisted for an opinion without the presence of the firearm, and in that context only, the appellant gave the non-specific and indefinite opinion. An expert, in such a situation, could not probably have given a different opinion.“

From Para 12,

Section 340 of CrPC, prior to amendment in 1973, was Section 479-A in the 1898 Code and it was mandatory under the pre-amended provision to record a finding after the preliminary inquiry regarding the commission of offence; whereas in the 1973 Code, the expression ‘shall’ has been substituted by ‘may’ meaning thereby that under 1973 Code, it is not mandatory that the court should record a finding. What is now required is only recording the finding of the preliminary inquiry which is meant only to form an opinion of the court, and that too, opinion on an offence ‘which appears to have been committed’, as to whether the same should be duly inquired into.

News:

https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court-quashes-perjury-proceedings-against-forensic-expert-who-turned-hostile-in-jessica-lal-case/

https://www.dailypioneer.com/2016/sunday-edition/ballistic-expert-gets-sc-relief.html

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/183258090/

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]