KESHAV DUTT versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 19-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 10 S.C.R. 151 
KESHAV DUTT 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1560 of 2010) 
AUGUST 19, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s.13(1 )(d) -
Conviction based on report of handwriting expert - Bribe C 
amount recovered from the co-accused - Appellant not 
present on the spot nor did he receive the money - Held: It 
was only the report of handwriting expert which connected the 
appellant with the offence on account of the paper which was 
said to be in his handwriting - The handwriting on the paper D 
was not formally proved by the prosecution - The expert was 
not examined - In the absence of examination of expert, his 
report cannot be relied on - The complicity of appellant was 
thus not established beyond doubt - Appellant entitled to 
benefit of doubt - His conviction set aside. 
E 
Evidence: Report of handwriting expert - Admissibility of 
- Held: Report of a handwriting expert cannot be admitted in 
evidence without examination of the expert - Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988. 
F 
The prosecution case was that the appellant-accused 
alongwith the co-accused employed as meter readers 
under the Electricity Board went to the house of the 
complainant for checking the electricity meter. After such 
checking, they informed the complainant that the load in 
G 
the meter was excess of the permissible load which was 
liable to fine. The meter reading was noted on a paper 
Ex.PR by the appellant. They informed the complainant 
151 
H 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 
A that if he paid bribe money, the matter would be hushed 
up. After about a week, both the accused again went to 
the complainant's house and demanded the bribe money 
and ultimately a sum of Rs.2000 was fixed. The complaint 
was made and trap was laid. The co-accused as well as 
B one 'M' went to the complainant's house. The raiding 
party recovered money from 'M'. All the three accused 
were charged under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant 
and the co-accused were convicted under Section 
C 13(1 )(d) and sentenced to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for a period of three years. However, 'M' 
was acquitted of all the charges. The appellant and the 
co-accused filed the appeals challenging the conviction 
and the sentence. State also filed appeal against the order 
D of acquittal of 'M'. The High Court affirmed the judgment 
of conviction~ It, however, reduced the sentence of 
imprisonment from three ·years to one year. The High 
Court also dismissed the appeal preferred by the State. 
E 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the 
appellant that without examining the handwriting expert, 
reliance could not be placed on his report; and that since 
the appellant was acquitted under Section 7 of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, his conviction under 
F Section 13(1)(d) of the Act was not maintainable. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The appellant had neither received the bribe 
money nor was he present at the spot when the same 
G was received by the co-accused, who handed over the 
same to 'M', but the involvement of the appellant did not 
require his presence at the time of the raid as he was 
connected with the offence in view of Ex.PR which was 
the paper on which the meter reading was jotted down 
H 
KESHAV DUTT v. STATE OF HARYANA 
153 
allegedly by the appellant. Ex~PR was proved by the 
A 
handwriting expert to be in the handwriting of the 
appellant. In that context, the question whether the 
opinion of the handwriting expert could have been relied 
upon without examining him was relevant. The report of 
the fingerprint expert who was not examined, indicated 
B 
that a specimen writing was given by the appellant and 
on a comparison of the same with the writings in Ex.PR, 
the fingerprint expert came to the conclusion that they 
were written by the same person. The trial court skirted 
the issue by holding that the defence could have C 
examined an expert to rebut the report. The High Court 
recorded that the report having gone unrebutted could 
be relied upon without any demur. The views of the trial 
court as well of the High Court in that regard cannot be 
accepted. When the trial court chos~ to rely on the report D 
of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the 
handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the 
appellant and the .other accused to cross-examine t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.