Reports of certain Government scientific experts
Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with reports of certain Government scientific experts. Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial o The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.
(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf.
(4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:-
(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;
(b) the Chief Inspector of-Explosives;
(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;
(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;
(e) the Director [,Deputy Director or Assistant Director] of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory ;
(f) the Serologist to the Government.
Section 293, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 329 Reports of certain Government scientific experts Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Hussain vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right cannot be denied due to lack of resources. When criminal trials or appeals remain pending for extended periods without fault of the accused, the accused is entitled to either expedited trial completion within specified timelines (6 months for magisterial trials and 2 years for sessions trials with accused in custody; 5 years for appeals) or bail. High Courts are constitutionally obligated to issue directions to subordinate courts ensuring these timelines are met, and to monitor compliance through appropriate action plans and judicial performance assessments. The State is required to augment judicial infrastructure, including appointing additional judges, establishing forensic laboratories, and digitizing case records, to fulfill this constitutional obligation. Undertrial prisoners who have undergone detention exceeding the likely sentence upon conviction must be released on personal bond. These are mandatory obligations, not discretionary matters.
On this section: Regarding tendering of medical witness evidence; suggested amendments for expanded applicability
-
Naveen @ Ajay vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A criminal trial for serious offences including rape and murder cannot be conducted in a hasty manner over 15 days without providing adequate time to the legal aid counsel to prepare the defence. The principle of fair trial, which is a fundamental right under the Constitution, requires that the accused be afforded a real and meaningful opportunity to defend himself through competent counsel with sufficient preparation time. The trial court has a duty to ensure compliance with fair trial principles by granting adequate time to defence counsel, which should normally be a minimum of 7 days but may be more depending on circumstances. Forensic evidence including DNA reports must be properly proved through examination of expert witnesses who prepared the reports, and the accused must be given opportunity to cross-examine such experts. A trial conducted in violation of these principles is void and the conviction and sentence must be set aside with the matter remitted for de novo trial.
On this section: Provision regarding admissibility of reports; High Court incorrectly relied on this section to avoid examining expert witnesses; Court clarified that reports must be properly proved through witness examination
-
K. Hashim vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal conspiracy cases involving counterfeiting of currency notes, the evidence of accomplices (approvers) is admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act and can form basis of conviction if credible and cogent, provided it is corroborated in material particulars as required by Section 114(b) Evidence Act as a matter of prudence. Such corroboration need not be direct evidence of the crime but can be circumstantial evidence of the accused's connection with the crime. The definition of 'counterfeiting' under Section 28 IPC is wide and covers causing one thing to resemble another with intention or knowledge of deception without requiring exact reproduction, and Explanation 2 creates rebuttable presumption of counterfeiting intent when resemblance is such that person might be deceived. Sections 489A, 489C and 489D IPC apply to foreign currency including US dollars and cover possession of materials and instruments for counterfeiting process.
On this section: Expert reports - admissibility of expert reports in evidence; trial court considered this section while accepting expert report
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… prepared and that the suicide letter, specimen handwriting and signature of accused Neeraj were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for comparison/opinion. - (xi) The Senior Scientific Officer (Documents), FSL-cum-Ex-Officio Chemical Examiner to Government of NCT of Delhi, whose report is admissible under section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"), confirmed, vide report dated 29.12.2000, that the suicide letter and specimens were in the handwriting of one and the same person. - (xii) Ex.PW27/B prepared by autopsy surgeon Dr. M.M. Narnaware, proved by PW27, suggested that the knife/dagger …
-
… prepared and that the suicide letter, specimen handwriting and signature of accused Neeraj were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for comparison/opinion. - (xi) The Senior Scientific Officer (Documents), FSL-cum-Ex-Officio Chemical Examiner to Government of NCT of Delhi, whose report is admissible under section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code"), confirmed, vide report dated 29.12.2000, that the suicide letter and specimens were in the handwriting of one and the same person. - (xii) Ex.PW27/B prepared by autopsy surgeon Dr. M.M. Narnaware, proved by PW27, suggested that the knife/dagger …
-
… Mr. Renjith B. Marar, learned counsel, contended that the handwriting expert had not been examined. In support thereof, he relies on the judgment of this Court in Padum Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 3 SCC 35 . The submission flies in the face of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Exhibit P-42 Report is prepared by Dr. K.P. Jayakumar, Joint Director (Research), Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. The report is duly marked and exhibited and proved as Exhibit P-42. The Joint Director who occupies a position above the Deputy Director and Assistant …
Questions about Section 293
What have the courts held on Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Hussain vs Union of India (09 Mar 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Regarding tendering of medical witness evidence; suggested amendments for expanded applicability. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 293, section 293 CRPC, section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Hussain vs Union of India (09 Mar 2017).
What should I read with Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 329 (Reports of certain Government scientific experts), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 293, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.