Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a criminal trial against the respondent, S.J. Choudhary, before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1983, on charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The prosecution sought to examine a typewriter expert to prove that a material document had been typed on a particular typewriter, linking the respondent to the offence. The defence objected to the admissibility of such opinion evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, relying on the decision of this Court in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343. The trial court upheld the objection and declined to admit the expert evidence. The prosecution filed Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1987 in the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed, leading to the present appeal by special leave. A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, by order dated March 22, 1990, referred the question to a Constitution Bench because it doubted the correctness of the observations in Hanumant. The sole question before the Constitution Bench was whether the opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant contended that the word 'science' in Section 45 is wide enough to include the scientific examination of typewriting and that Hanumant did not decide the point as it had not been contested. The respondent relied on Hanumant to argue that typewriter expert opinion did not fall within Section 45. The Court examined Section 45, which makes relevant the opinions of persons specially skilled in foreign law, science, art, or questions of identity of handwriting or finger impressions. It noted that typewriters did not exist when the Act was enacted in 1872, but the word 'science' was not confined to subjects known at that time. The Court referred to dictionary meanings of 'science' as systematic and formulated knowledge, and held that the examination of typewriting involves a scientific study of the peculiar features of a typewriter, the comparison of disputed and admitted typewriting, and the formation of opinion on recognized principles. It also cited the principle of updating construction from Francis Bennion's Statutory Interpretation, stating that an ongoing Act is to be treated as 'always speaking' and construed in light of technological changes. The Court held that Hanumant was not an authority on the point because in that case the High Court's view about inadmissibility was not contested before this Court, and the decision proceeded on a concession. Accordingly, the Court answered the reference in favour of the prosecution, holding that a typewriter expert is an expert in a branch of science and his opinion is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the orders excluding the expert evidence were set aside, enabling the prosecution to examine the typewriter expert at trial.
Headnote
A) Evidence Law - Expert Opinion - Admissibility of Typewriter Expert Evidence - Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The core issue was whether the opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible as a relevant fact. The Court held that the term 'science' in Section 45 has a wide import and includes the systematic study of typewriting; hence a person specially skilled in examining typewriters is an expert whose opinion about the identity of a typewriter is relevant and admissible. Held that the orders of the trial court and High Court excluding such evidence were erroneous. B) Evidence Law - Precedent - Binding Effect of Observations in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh - Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The earlier decision in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343 was relied upon to exclude typewriter expert evidence, but the Court observed that the point was not contested in that case and proceeded on a concession. Held that Hanumant could not be treated as an authoritative decision on the admissibility of typewriter expert evidence. C) Statutory Interpretation - Updating Construction - Construction of Ongoing Acts - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 - The Court applied the presumption that an ongoing Act is to be construed as 'always speaking' and that allowances are to be made for technological changes since enactment. Held that although typewriters were not known in 1872, the word 'science' in Section 45 must be construed dynamically to include typewriting examination.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible in evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Final Decision
The Supreme Court answered the reference in favour of the prosecution, holding that the opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible in evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the orders of the trial court and Delhi High Court excluding such evidence were set aside, enabling the prosecution to examine the typewriter expert at trial.
Law Points
- Section 45 admits opinion of persons specially skilled in science
- art
- foreign law
- handwriting
- finger impressions
- term science includes typewriting
- typewriter expert is an expert under Section 45
- Hanumant not binding on this point
- Indian Evidence Act is ongoing Act
- updating construction applies
