Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:16327 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 35801 of 2024 Applicant :- Sabir Ali And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Kulshrestha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Kulshrestha, the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. appearing for State-opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Neeraj Kumar Chaurasia, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Avnesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2. 2. Applicant- Sabir Ali and 2 others, who are charge sheeted accused have approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 17.09.2024, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 371 of 2016(State vs. Abdul Kalam & Ors.), under Section 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station Masoori, District Ghaziabad whereby application under section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused applicants before Court below has been rejected. 3. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A., referring to Section 293 Cr.P.C., has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-applicants before court below. 4. Learned A.G.A. contends that the FSL report falls in the category of scientific evidence and, therefore, by reason of the provisions contained in Section 293 Cr.P.C. no evidence is required to prove the same as scientific evidence is not required to be proved in evidence. He, therefore, contends that the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-applicants was mis- conceived. As such, no illegality has been committed by court below in rejecting the same. 5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same. However, the learned counsel for applicants has tried to impress upon the Court by repeatedly submitting that the FSL report submitted by the prosecution was retained for almost seven years and therefore the same needs to be proved in evidence. 6. Be that as it may but that by itself is not a legal ground to allow the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by applicants before court below. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicants, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing first informant- opposite party no. 2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are clearly borne out from the record and furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to law and record. As such no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 8. In view of above, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 9. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 5.2.2025 Ruhi H. (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad