http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: STATE (THROUGH CBI/NEW DELHI)

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.J. CHOUDHARY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/02/1996

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) RAY, G.N. (J) SINGH N.P. (J) FAIZAN UDDIN (J) NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 1491            1996 SCC  (2) 428  JT 1996 (2)   186        1996 SCALE  (2)37

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N I 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 ?      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,  1908 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 vs. The 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.      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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

only point  involved for  decision in  this appeal  and  the decision thereon would dispose of the appeal.      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      it 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."                              (Page 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.      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 Sections 45 to 51. Section 45 reads thus:      "Opinions of  experts  -  When  the      Court has to form an opinion upon a      point  of   foreign  law,   or   of      science, or  art, or as to identity      of    handwriting     [or    finger      impressions] (Ins.  by   Act  5  of      1899, S. 3), the opinions upon that      point of  persons specially skilled      in such  foreign  law,  science  or      art,  [or   in  questions   as   to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

    identity of  handwriting] (Ins.  by      Act 18  of 1872,  S. 4), [or finger      impressions]  (Ins.  by  Act  5  of      1899, S. 3), are relevant facts.      Such persons are called experts." Illustration (c) to Section 45 is as under:           "(c) The  question is, whether      a certain  document was  written by      A.  Another  document  is  produced      which is proved or admitted to have      been written by A.           The opinions of experts on the      question whether  the two documents      were written  by the same person or      by different persons are relevant." The plain  meaning of  Section 45 is that the Court in order to form  an opinion  upon a  point of  foreign  law,  or  of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting, or finger impressions can  treat the opinion upon that point of person specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions  as  to  identity  of  -  handwriting,  or  finger impressions as  relevant facts.  In other words, the opinion of persons  specially skilled  in such foreign law, science, or art,  or questions  as to  the identity of handwriting or finger impression,  called  experts  therein,  are  relevant facts. The opinion of such experts is admissible in evidence as relevant  facts by  virtue of  Section 45 of the Evidence Act.      In our  opinion, irrespective  of the view taken on the question of  meaning of the word ’handwriting’ in Section 45 to  include   typewriting,  the  word  ’science’,  occurring independently and  in addition  to the word ’handwriting’ in Section 45,  is sufficient to indicate 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 of identifying the particular typewriter on  which the writing is typed is a relevant fact under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. It is obvious that the Indian Evidence  Act when enacted originally in 1872 did not specifically mention  typewriting in addition to handwriting because typewriters  were then practically unknown. However, the expression  ’science, or  art’ in Section 45 in addition to the  expressions ’foreign  law’ and ’handwriting’ used in the  Section  as  originally  enacted,  and  the  expression ’finger impressions’  inserted  in  1899  is  sufficient  to indicate that the expression ’science, or art’ therein is of wide import.  This  expression  ’science,  or  art’  cannot, therefore, have  a narrow  meaning in Section 45 and each of the words  ’science’ and ’art’ has to be construed widely to include within  its ambit  the opinion  of an expert in each branch of  these subjects, whenever the Court has to form an opinion upon  a point  relating to  any aspect of science or art.      The meaning of the word ’science’ as understood ordinarily with reference to its dictionary meaning must be attributed to the word as used in Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Some of the meanings given in the dictionaries are :      The  Oxford   Encyclopedic  English      Dictionary :      "Science.....a    systematic    and      formulated  knowledge,  esp.  of  a      specified type  or on  a  specified      subject (political science). b. the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

    pursuit    or     principles     of      this......."      The  New   Shorter  Oxford  English      Dictionary, Vol. 2.,:      "Science...2a Knowledge acquired by      study; acquaintance with or mastery      of a  department of  learning 3a. A      particular branch  of knowledge  or      study; a  recognized department  of      learning;..."      Collins Dictionary  of the  English      Language:      "Science n.  1 the systemetic study      of the  nature and  behavior of the      material  and   physical  universe,      based on  observation,  experiment,      and    measurement,     and     the      formulation  of  laws  to  describe      these facts  in general  terms.  2.      the knowledge  so obtained  or  the      practice of  obtaining it.  3.  any      particular    branch     of    this      knowledge:  the  pure  and  applied      sciences. 4.  any body of knowledge      organized in  a systematic  manner.      5. skill or technique..."      It is clear from the meaning of the word ’science’ that the skill or technique of the study of the peculiar features of  a   typewriter  and   the  comparison  of  the  disputed typewriting with  the admitted  typewriting on  a particular typewriter to determine whether the disputed typewriting was done   on the same typewriter is based on a science study of the two  typewritings with  reference to  the  peculiarities therein; and  the opinion  formed by  an expert  is based on recognized principles  resulting the  scientific study.  The opinion so  formed by  a person having the requisite special skill in the subject is, therefore, the opinion of an expert in that  branch of  the science.  Such  an  opinion  is  the opinion of  an expert  in  a  branch  of  science  which  is admissible in  evidence  under  Section  45  of  the  Indian Evidence Act.      There cannot be any doubt that the opinion of an expert in typewriting  about the  questioned typed  document  being typed on  a particular  typewriter is  based on a scientific study of  the typewriting  is based on a scientific study of the typewriting  with reference  to the significant peculiar features of a particular typewriter and the ultimate opinion of the expert is based on scientific grounds. The opinion of a typewriter  expert is  an opinion  of a  person  specially skilled in  that branch  of the  science with  reference  to which the Court has to form an opinion on the point involved for decision  in the  case.  In  our  opinion,  on  a  plain constructing of Section 45 giving to the word ’science’ used therein its  natural meaning, this conclusion is inevitable; and for  supporting that  conclusion, it is not necessary to rely on  the further  reason that  the word ’handwriting’ in Section 45 would also include typewriting.      Statutory Interpretation  by  Francis  Bennion,  Second edition, Section  288 with  the  heading  "Presumption  that updating construction  to be  given" states one of the rules thus: " xxx      xxx       xxx      (2) It  is presumed that Parliament      intends the  court to  apply to  an      ongoing  Act  a  construction  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

    continuously updates its wording to      allow for changes since the Act was      initially   framed   (an   updating      construction).  While   it  remains      law, it  is to be treated as always      speaking. This  means that  in  its      application  on   any   date,   the      language   of   the   Act,   though      necessarily  embedded  in  its  own      time,   is   nevertheless   to   be      construed in  accordance  with  the      need to treat it as current law.           xxx        xxx      xxx                             ( Page 617 ) In the  comments that  follow it  is  pointed  out  that  an ongoing Act  is taken  to be  always speaking.  It is  also, further, stated thus:           "In construing an ongoing Act,      the interpreter  is to presume that      Parliament intended  the Act  to be      applied at  any future time in such      a way as to give effect to the true      original intention. Accordingly the      interpreter is  to make  allowances      for any  relevant changes that have      occurred, since  the Act’s passing,      in    law,    social    conditions,      technology, the  meaning of  words,      and other  matters. Just  as the US      Constitution  is   regarded  as  ’a      living Constitution’, so an ongoing      British  Rct   is  regarded  as  ’a      living    Act’.     That    today’s      construction      involves      the      supposition  that   Parliament  was      catering long  ago for  a state  of      affairs that  did not then exist is      no    argument     against     that      construction.  Parliament,  in  the      wording   of   an   enactment,   is      expected  to   anticipate  temporal      developments. The  drafter will try      to foresee  the future,  and  allow      for it in the wording.      xxx            xxx              xxx      An enactment of former days is thus      to be  read today,  in the light of      dynamic  processing  received  over      the years,  with such  modification      of  the   current  meaning  of  its      language as will now give effect to      the original legislative intention.      The reality  and effect  of dynamic      processing  provides   the  gradual      adjustment. It  is  constituted  by      judicial  interpretation,  year  in      and year  out.  It  also  comprises      processing by executive officials."                        ( Pages 618-619 )      There cannot be any doubt that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is, by its very nature, an ’ongoing Act.’      It appears  that it  was only  in 1874  that the  first practical typewriter made its appearance and was marketed in that year  by the  E. Remington and Sons Company which later became the  Remington typewriter  - Obviously, in the Indian

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

Evidence Act  enacted  in  1872  typewriting  could  not  be specifically mentioned  as a  means of writing in Section 45 of the  Evidence Act.  Ever since  then, technology has made great strides  and so  also the technology of manufacture of typewriters resulting  in common  use of  typewriters  as  a prevalent  mode   of  writing.   This  has   given  rise  to development of the branch of science relating to examination of questioned typewriting. I ’Questioned  Documents’,  Second  Edition,  by  Albert  S. Osborn in  the  Chapter  of  "questioned  typewriting"  this aspect is  considered and, therein at page 598, it is stated thus:           "The principles underlying the      identification of  typewriting  are      the same  as  those  by  which  the      identity of  a person is determined      or a handwriting is identified. The      identification in  either  case  is      based upon  a definite  combination      of common  or class  qualities  and      features  in   connection  with   a      second group  of    characteristics      made up  of divergences  from class      qualities   which    then    become      individual peculiarities.           The  mathematical   principles      outlined in  the fourteenth chapter      show how  remote is the possibility      of coincidence  of even a few scars      or deformities  on  a  person,  and      coincidence    of     scars     and      deformities  are   as  remote  with      typewriters as with persons."      In ’Photographic  Evidence’ by Charles C. Scott, Second Edition, Volume  1, under  the heading "Typewriting-Identity or Non-identity of Typing" it is stated thus:           "But even  as the  nationality      of an  individual may be perplexing      but does  not in any way hamper the      determination   of   his   personal      identity by  means of  his  finger-      prints, his  handwriting, or  other      reliable indications,  so also  the      fact that  it is often difficult to      determine the  make of a typewriter      used in  typing a document does not      lessen  the   reliability  of   the      scientific  determination   that  a      certain  typewritten  document  was      typed  on   a  particular   machine      ragardless of  its make. By the use      of the  proper microscopes and test      plates the  document examiner often      can determine  the question  and by      the use  of photographic comparison      charts  he   can  demonstrate   his      findings,       usually        with      unimpeachable certainty.           From  a   comparison  of   the      typewriting on  a document which is      a  subject   of  controversy   with      specimens known  to have  been made      on  a   certain  typewriter  it  is      usually   possible   to   determine      whether or  not that typewriter was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

    used   in    typing   the   subject      document,  provided   the   subject      document    contains     sufficient      typewriting and  the specimens from      the known machine are of a suitable      kind. This  is true  because  every      typewriter when  it comes  off  the      assembly line  is an individual and      writes  exactly   like   no   other      typewriter. When  a  typewriter  is      brand new  the differences  between      it and other typewriters coming off      the assembly  line at the same time      are extremely  minute and  elusive,      but theoretically  at  least  there      are  identifying  differences  that      can be  discovered  by  microscopic      examination    and     demonstrated      photographically. Furthermore,  the      more a  typewriter is used the more      individualistic it  becomes and the      easier  it   is  to   identify  its      typewriting.  In   some   instances      through overuse, misuse, or abuse a      typewriter   develops    so    many      peculiarities that  its typing  can      be  identified   readily  with  the      naked eye."                               (page 636)      In ‘Law of Disputed and Forged Documents’ by J.  Newton Baker,  while   dealing  with   the  basic   principles   of identification of Typewriting generally it is stated:      "   Since   typewriting   possesses      individuality it  can  be  compared      and identified  in the  same manner      as handwriting. ..........."                               (page 453) Therein while discussing individuality of typewriting, it is stated thus :           "The  individuality   of   the      typewriter is  established  by  the      character of  its type  impressions      on the paper. These characteristics      of  typewriting  can  be  analyzed,      compared and differentiated and can      be positively  identified as  those      of a  particular  typewriter.  This      individual      comparison      and      identification  of  characteristics      may establish  the  genuineness  or      forgery of a typewritten instrument      and when  admitted in  evidence  is      sufficient proof.           The  occurrence   of   similar      irregularities  in  typewriting  it      two or more machines is practicable      impossible.  The   rule  that   the      typewriter  creates  for  itself  a      certain  distinctive  character  of      writing   which    identifies   one      certain  machine   from  all  other      machines is  well  established.  To      prove  that  two  instruments  were      written on  a Particular typewriter      similar coincidences  of character-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

    istics  must   be  shown   in  both      instruments, and these coincidences      considered collectively must demand      a single conclusion."                          (pages-451-452)      In ’Typewriting  Identification (Identification  System for Questioned  Typewriting)’  by  Billy  Prior  Bates,  the conclusion of the principles is stated thus:               "Conclusion           TYPEWRITING identification  is      based   on   the   same   principle      underlying              handwriting      identification, or  any other thing      which  has   a  great   number   of      possible variations.           The     identification  of   a      typewritten document can be likened      to   the    identification   of   a      particular person.  A person may be      identified in  general by  his sex,      size,   features   etc.,   and   in      addition, for example, by a radical      mastestomy scar.  A typewriter  may      be   identified   in   general   by      characteristics such as type design      and size, possessed by all machines      of a  specific make  and model, and      in   addition, for  example,  by  a      flaw in the serif on the letter E.           No  opinion   as  to  identity      should be  based upon  only  a  few      dissimilarities (or  similarities).      It   is    the    combination    of      measurements  and   characteristics      all   together    make    up    the      conclusion.           When good, clear specimens ere      available in  sufficient amount for      a scientific  identification of the      twelve points  of comparison, it is      possible  to   show  with  absolute      certainty that  a document  was, or      was  not, produced by a  particular      machine.           The  mathematical  probability      of the  same combination  of  these      characteristics divergent  from the      norm appearing  in two  machines is      practically nil.  The  evidence  of      the twelve points of comparison can      be conclusive proof."                                (page 59)      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 of  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 in similar jurisdictions like United States  as is  evident from these standard text books on the subject.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

    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 necessarily  understood to include typewriting as well, since typing has become more common than handwriting and this change is on account of the availability 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.