PANNA LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PANNALAL, the petitioner before me, was convicted by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bhim under sec. 193 Indian Penal Code and his. conviction was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur. The Sub-divisional Magistrate awarded a sentence of four months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-; in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for one month. The appellate court, however, reduced the period of imprisonment from four months to one month but enhanced the fine to Rs. 300/ -. The petitioner has filed this revision challenging his conviction, alternatively praying for the reduction in the sentence.

(2.) THE facts broadly stated are that one Chothmal and the petitioner filed a suit in the court of the Munsif, Bhim against one Jeta on the basis of a Khata, Ex. P. 5 alleging that it bore the thumb impression of Jeta. THE civil suit was dismissed by the Munsif on a finding that the Khata was a forged one. THE dismissal of the suit by the Munsif was upheld in appeal and in revision by the High Court. THE Munsif while dismissing the suit directed that the petitioner and two others, i. e. Chothmal and Ranglal should be prosecuted under secs. 467, 471 and 193 Indian Penal Code. THE complaint was accordingly filed by the Munsif, Bhim in the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bhim. THE Sub-divisional Magistrate, Bhim discharged Chothmal and subsequently acquitted Ranglal, but convicted Pannalal under sec. 193 I. P. C.

(3.) I do not think that the learned Judge intended to lay down a rule of law that a person cannot claim to be an expert on the basis of a correspondence course and that he must necessarily receive practical training in the art of finger print identification in an institution or under an expert. I am not prepared to accept as an inflexible principle that a person can never acquire special experience and be an expert merely on the basis of a correspondence course even after passing an examination from a recognised institution. In my opinion, whether a particular person should be treated as an expert is in the ultimate analysis a question of fact to be determined on a consideration of all the circumstances relating to the acquisition of special experience by a person claiming to be an expert. In the present case, on the materials that have been brought on record, I am not prepared to hold that Shri Krishna Behari Lal's claim to be an expert is without justification. In this view of the matter, the argument advanced by Shri Shrikishanmal that the evidence of the expert should be treated as inadmissible is rejected.