Back
1996(2) SUPREME 150
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, G.N. Ray, N.P. Singh, Faizan Uddin & G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
State (through CBI/New Delhi) -Appellant
versus
S.J. Choudhary -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 1987
Decided on 13-2-1996
Held : It is, therefore, clear that the examination of typewriting and identification of the typewriter on which the questioned document was typed is based on a scientific study of certain significant features of the typewriter peculiar to a particular typewriter and its individuality which can be studied by an expert having professional skill in the subject and, therefore, his opinion on that point relates to an aspect in the field a science which falls within the ambit of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such opinion evidence of experts in the field has long been treated as admissible evidence is similar jurisdictions like United States as is evident from these standard text books on the subject. In the present case, even without resort to the word handwriting in Section 45 to include typewriting therein, in the view we have taken, the word science is wide enough to meet the requirement of treating the opinion of a typewriter expert as an opinion evidence coming within the ambit of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. We may, however, add that the long accepted practice of judicial construction which enabled the reading of the word telegraph to include telephone within the meaning of that word in Acts of 1863 and 1869 when telephone was not invented, would also be available in the present case to read typewriting within the meaning of word handwriting in the Act of 1872. This is so because what was understood by hand-writing in 1872 must now in the present times after more than a century of the enactment of that provision, be necesarily understood to include typewriting as well, since typing was become more common than handwriting and this change is on account of the availablity of typewriters and their common use much after the statute was enacted in 1872. This is an additional reason for us to hold that the opinion of the typewriter expert in this context is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. As a result of the above discussion, we hold that the observations made in the above extract in the decision in Hanumant on the basis of a concession does not reflect the correct position of law on this point and should, therefore, be treated as no longer good law on the point. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the opinion of the typewriter expert in the present case is admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and the contrary view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court is erroneous. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders of the Trial Court and the
High Court are set aside. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20)
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible as evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872, as it involves a scientific study of the peculiar features of the typewriter and its individuality (!) (!) (!) .
The earlier view that the opinion of a typewriter expert was not admissible under Section 45 is no longer valid and has been overruled; the previous legal position based on a different case law is considered no longer good law (!) (!) (!) .
The term "science" in Section 45 is interpreted broadly to include the scientific study and expertise related to typewriting, which involves systematic analysis and comparison of features unique to each typewriter (!) (!) (!) .
The expression "handwriting" in the statute is understood to encompass typewriting, especially given the technological advancements and common usage of typewriters since the enactment of the law (!) (!) .
The opinion of a typewriter expert is based on recognized scientific principles, and their expertise involves analyzing significant features of the typewriter to establish the identity of the machine used to produce a questioned document (!) (!) (!) .
The scientific examination of typewriting involves identifying individual characteristics and irregularities that are unique to each machine, making such expert opinions reliable and relevant (!) (!) (!) .
The law considers the ongoing nature of the Evidence Act, implying that it adapts over time with technological and societal changes, which supports the inclusion of modern methods such as typewriter analysis within its scope (!) (!) (!) .
The examination and identification process is supported by authoritative texts and standard principles in the field, emphasizing that such scientific analysis is well-established and accepted in similar jurisdictions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court has the authority to interpret statutes dynamically, applying current technological understanding to ensure the law remains relevant and effective in modern contexts (!) (!) (!) .
The decision clarifies that previous judicial opinions limiting the admissibility of expert opinions on typewriting are no longer applicable, and the expert testimony is deemed admissible and relevant for establishing facts in legal proceedings (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice related to this document.
JUDGMENT
J.S. Verma, J.-The reference made in this appeal to the Constitution 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 ?
2. The respondent-S.J. Choudhary was being tried in the Court of Add. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, on charges punishable under Section 302, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1983. The prosecution wanted to examine a typwriter 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 Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "Evidence Act") based on the decision of this Court in Hanumant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh1, and the Trial Court upheld that objection. Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1987 was filed in the Delhi High Court by the prosecution challenging that order. The Delhi High Court has dismissed the revision, hence this appeal by special leave.
3. The present criminal appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench comprising of two learned Judges of this Court. The correctness of the observations in Hanumnat s case by a Bench of three learned Judges on this point was doubted and reconsideration thereof was sought on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, by order dated March 22, 1990 the Division Bench took the view that this important question of law involved in this appeal should be considered and decided by a larger Bench. This question of law is the only point involved for decision in this appeal and the decision thereon would dispose of the appeal.
4. In Hanumant (supra), while dealing with one of the arguments advanced therein,it was stated thus :
"Next it was argued that the letter was not typed on the office typewriter that was in those days, viz., article B, and that it had been typed on the typewriter article A which did not reach Nagpur till the end of 1946. On this point evidence of certain experts was led. The High Court rightly held that opinion of such experts was not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act as they did not fall within the ambit of Section 45 of the Act. This view of the High Court was not contested before us. It is curious that the learned Judge in the High Court, though he held that the evidence of the experts was inadmissible, proceeded nevertheless to discuss and placed some reliance on it. The trial Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge used this evidence to arrive at the finding that, as the letter was typed on article A which had not reached Nagpur till the end of December, 1946, obviously the letter was antedated. Their conclusion based on inadmissible evidence has therefore to be ignored." (Para 1110)
(Emphasis supplied)
The above passage in that decision is the basis of the view taken that the opinion of a typewriter expert is not admissible under the Evidence Act and that it does not fall within the ambit of Section 45 of the Act. It is significant that this view taken by the High Court in that case was not even contested in this court and, therefore, the decision in Hanumant proceeds on the concession that the evidence of a typewriter expert is not admissible in evidence under Section 45 of the Act.
In our opinion, the decision in Hanumant cannot be taken as deciding that point even though on the basis of that observation the evidence of typewriter expert was excluded as inadmissible. This question of law has, therefore, to be answered without any further assistance being available from the decision in Hanumant.
5. In the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Chapter II relating to Relevancy of Facts contains Sections 5 to 55 and therein under the heading Opinions of Third Persons, when relevant are Section 45 to 51. Section 45 reads thus :
"Opinions of experts
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
