STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus JAI LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 318 · Decided: 13-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 
v. 
JAi LAL AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 1999 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Criminal Law: 
Evidence Act, 187.,,: Section 45. 
District Horticultural Officer-Examined as expert witness-For 
assessing the fruit- bearing capacity of apple orchards-Such expert witness 
made no scientific study or research in assessing the productivity of apple 
trees -Credibility of such expert evidences-Held: Testimony of such an 
expert witness cannot be given the label of expert evidence -Criminal Trial. 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 120-B and 420. 
Criminal conspiracy-State Government took policy decision to 
purchase diseased fruits and destroy the same-Allegations that accused 
persons prepared false records showing inflated quantities of scabbed apple 
E and thereby caused loss to the State exchequer-No proof of conspiracy-
Allegations sought to be established by expert evidence-Such evidence 
found unreliable and inadequate-Held :In the circumstances of the case, 
High Court rightly acquitted the accused persons-Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988, S.5(2). 
F 
Words and Phrases: 
"Experts"-Meaning of-Jn the context of S.45 of the Evidence Act 
1872. 
The respondents-accused were convicted by the trial court under 
G Sections 120-B and 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(2) of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B IPC. However, 
the High Court acquitted the accused persons .Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, a disease called 'Scab' rendering the 
H fruits unfit for human co._sumption afflicted the apple orchards in different 
318 
ST ATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. JAi LAL 
319 
areas of the State. The State Government, therefore, took a policy decision A 
to purchase the diseased fruits and destroy the same. It was decided that 
procurement and destruction of diseased apples would be done at different 
centres throughout the State by teams comprising of officials and non-
officials. 
It was alleged that the accused persons had brought much lesser B 
quantities of scabbed apple than the quantity entered in the official records 
and received amount in lieu of the same and thus entered into a criminal 
conspiracy with a view to cheat the State Government . 
At the trial the prosecution case was sought to be proved by 
circumstantial evidence which was brought on record by the testimony of the C 
District Horticulture Officer who was examined as an expert for assessing 
the fruit bearing capacity of the orchards in question. According to the 
prosecution, the evidence of this expert showed that the quantity of scabbed 
apple brought by the accused to the procurement centres as reflected in the 
records was grossly inflated. From the evidence the prosecution sought to D 
establish the case that the whole transaction was an outcome of a criminal 
conspiracy to cheat the State Government and to misappropriate public funds 
and the public servants concerned having been parties to the conspiracy, the 
purpose could be easily achieved. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. An expert witness is one who has made the subject upon 
which he speaks a matter of particular study, practice or observation; and 
he must have a special knowledge of the subject. (324-B] 
2.1. An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an 
advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the judge with 
the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions 
so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment by the application 
E 
F 
of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific 
opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and G 
often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of 
the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in 
support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form 
the basis of his conclusions. (325-E-F] 
2.2. The report submitted by an expert does not go in as evidence H 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP: 2 S.C.R. 
A automatically. He is to be examined as a witness in Court and has to faee 
cross-examination. [325-G) 
Hazi Mohammed Jkramul Haque v. State of WB, (1959) SCR 488, relied 
on. 
B 
3.1. In the present case, the expert witness has not stated anything in 
his testimony to show that he had made any scientific study or research in 
assessing the p

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