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

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 556 · Decided: 13-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE (THROUGH CBI/NEW DELHI) 
v. 
S.J. CHOUDHARY 
FEBRUARY 13, 1996 
[J.S. VERMA, G.N. RAY, N.P. SINGH, FAIZAN UDDIN 
AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872--Ch°apter II-Sec. 45-Held, opinion of 
typewriter expe1t is admissible in evidence. 
Words and Phrases : "Science" "Handw1iting"-Meaniitg of-In the 
context of opinion of typewliting expert-S.45 of Evidence Act. 1872. 
The respondent was tried in the Sessions Court, New Delhi for 
offences under Sections 302 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Sub-
D stances Act, 1908. When the prosecution wanted to examine a typewriter 
expert for proof of certain incriminating facts against the respondent 
based on the identity of a typeWriter on which a material document was 
alleged to have been typed, an objection was taken to the admissibility of 
the opinion evidence of the typewriter expert under Section 45 of the Indian 
E 
Evidence Act, 1872 based on the decision of the Supreme Court in 
Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR (19952) SC 343 = [1952] 
SCR 1091. The trial court upheld the objection. The Revision Petition 
before the High Court was also dismissed. 
The Appellants challenged the correctness of the findings in 
F 
Hanumant's case and sought for reconsideration of the said judgment. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD :_1. The observations made in the decision in Hanumant's case 
on the basis of a concession does not reflect the correct position of law on 
G this point and should, therefore, be treated as no longer good law on the 
point. The decision in Hanumant's case proceeds on the concession that the 
evide!~~e of a typewliter expe1t is not admissible in evidence under Section 45 
of the Eviden,ce Act. The decision in Hanumant cannot be taken as deciding 
that point event though on the basis of that observation the evidence of 
H typewriter ex11ert was excluded as inadmissible. [567-E-F; 559-D-E] 
556 
... 
-
• 
, 
'· 
STATE v. S.J. CHOUDHARY 
557 
Hanwnant v. 17ie State of M.P., AIR (1952) SC 343 = [1952] SCR A 
1091, overruled . 
2. The opinion of the typewriter expert in the present case is admis· 
sible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and the contrary view taken by 
the Trial Court and the High Court is erroneous. [567-F] 
3. Irrespective of the view that the word "handwriting" in Section 45 
includes typewriting the word "science" is wide enough to meet the require· 
ment of treating the opinion of a typewriter expert as an opinion evidence 
coming within the ambit of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. [567-B] 
Statutory Interpretation by Francis Bennion, Second edition pp. 617 to 
619; 'Question Documents, Second Edition, by Albert S. Osborn pg. 598~ 
'Photographic Evidence' by Charles C. Scott., Second Edition, Volume 1 pg. 
636; 'Law of Disputed and Forged Documents', by J. Newton Baker pp. 
451-453 and 'Typewriting Identification (Identification System for Questioned 
(Typew1iting)' by Billy Prior Bates pg. 59, referred to. 
4. The word "Science" occurring independently and in addition to the 
word "handwriting" in Section 45 of the Act of 1872, is sufficient to indicate 
B 
c 
D 
that the opinion of a person specially skilled in the use of typewriters and 
having the scientific knowledge of typewriters would be an expert in this 
science and his opinion about the identity of typewriting for the purpose E 
of identifying the particular typewriter on which the writing is typed is a 
relevant fact under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. [561-E-F] 
The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary; the New Shorter Oxford 
English Dictiona1y, Vol. 2; Collins Dictionary of the English Language, F 
referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
461of1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.5.87 of the Delhi High Court G 
in Crl. R. No. 105 of 1987. 
A. Jayaram Additional Solicitor General, A. Subha Rao and P. 
Parmeswaran for the Appellants. 
Respondent in-person (N.P.). 
H 
A 
B 
558 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1996] 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
J.S. VERMA, J. The reference made in this appeal to the Constitu-
tion Bench is for deciding the important question of law : Whether the 
opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible in evidence under Section 45 
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? 
The respondent - S.J. Chaudhary was being tried in the Court of 
Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, on charges punishable under Section 
302, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.