STATE Vs. S J CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 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 Act, 1980 in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1983. 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 Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "Evidence Act") based on the decision of this Court in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343:(1952) SCR 1091, 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 Hanumant's case (supra) 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.