STATE (THROUGH CBI/NEW DELHI) versus S.J. CHOUDHARY

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 124 · Decided: 22-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE (THROUGH CBI/NEW DELHI) 
v. 
S.J. CHOUDHARY 
MARCH 22,1990 
B 
[S. RA1NAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA 
c 
D 
E 
REDDY, JJ.] 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: S. 45-0pinion of typescript 
expert-Whether admissible in evidence -Question referred to larger 
Bench. 
A device parcel containing camouflaged live hand grenade 
exploded in the hands of the addressee resulting in his instantaneous 
death. The police collected from the scene of incident the typewritten 
pieces of the paper in which the grenade had been wrapped and sent 
them to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory where they succeeded 
in partially reconstructing the name and address of the deceased. ~''1ese 
were then examined by the Head of the Document Division in the said 
Laboratory with reference to the specimen of typing prints taken from 
the commercial college where they were alleged to have been got typed. 
He opined that on balance of similarities and dissimilarities it was 
reasonable to conclude that the typescripts found on the slip pasted on 
the wrapper of the parcel had .been typed from one. of the machines of 
the colleg~ as both the impressions were identical. 
At the trial the prosecution wanted to examine the said expert to 
prove the fact. This was resisted by the defence on the ground that the 
evidence of such typewriting expert was inadmissible under s. 45 of the 
F 
Indian Evidence Act as it did not fall within its ambit. The trial court 
relying on the observations to that effect in Hanumant & Anr. v. State 
~ 
of Madhya Pradesh, [1952] SCR 1091, dismissed the prayer. The High 
Court dismissed the State's revision petition in limine. 
In the appeal by the State it was submitted that the word 'science' 
G 
occurring in s. 45 of the Evidence Act should be held comprehensive 
enough to include the opinion of an expert in regard to transcript as 
well in view of the march of science. 
Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court, 
H 
HELD: By the march of time, there is rapid development in the 
l24 
··--....,,. 
STATE v. S.J. CHOUDHARY [PANDIAN, J.J 
125 
field of forensic science and it has become imperative to match the said 
march of modern vistas of scientific knowledge. The question in the 
instant case whether the opinion of an expert in regard lo typescript 
would fall within the ambit of s. 45 of the Evidence Act should, there-
fore, he examined in detail and decided by a Large Bench as the judgment 
in Hanumant's case was rendered by a Bench of three Judges. [J30D, G] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 461of1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.5.1987 of the Delhi High 
Court in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1987. 
Ashok Desai, Additional Solicitor General, P.K. Chaube, 
G. Venkatesh Rao, Ms. A. Subhashini and P.K. Choudhary for the 
Appellant. 
R.K. Garg, J.P. Pathak and P.H. Parekh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. The State represented by C.B.I., 
New Delhi has directed this appeal against the Order dated 20.5.1987 
of the High Court of Delhi passed in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1987 
A 
B 
c 
D 
dismissing the petition of the petitioner in limine. The relevant facts 
E 
which have given rise to this appeal can be stated thus: 
The respondent, S.J. Choudhary is taking his trial before the 
Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi for the offences under Section 
302 l.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act in 
Sessions Case No. 36 of 1983. According to the prosecution that on 
F 
2.10.1982 at about 5.45 p.m., the deceased in this case, namely, 
Krishan Sikand received a parcel addressed to him. The deceased 
being unaware of the camouflaged contents opened the parcel which 
on opening exploded resulting in the instantaneous death of the 
deceased. Relating to this incident, a case was re~istered at Hazrat 
Nizamuddin Police Station as FIR No. 305 dated 2.10.1982. The 
G 
investigation was taken up by the police of the said police station. 
Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to Crime Branch, Delhi 
on the very next day i.e. on 3.10.1982 and finally in March 1983 to the 
Central Bureau of Investigation where it was registered as case RC 
3/83-CBI/DSPE/CIUI(P)/New Delhi. The respondent/accused was 
arrested by the C.B.I. on 1.8.83. Under the orders of Court, the 
H 
A 
126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 2 S.C.R. 
custody of the respondent was handed over to the CBI for sometime. 
After completing the investig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.