STATE (THROUGH CBI/NEW DELHI) versus S.J. CHOUDHARY

STATE (THROUGH CBI/NEW DELHI) versus S.J. CHOUDHARY

No final ratio decidendi as the question—whether opinion of a typescript expert is admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act—is not decided and is referred for decision by a larger Bench.

Parties
Appellant: STATE (THROUGH CBI/NEW DELHI); Respondent: S.J. Choudhary
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 March 1990
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 1987 / Appeal From Order of Delhi High Court Dismissing Revision Petition in Limine; Appeal Referred to Larger Bench
Outcome
Appeal referred to Larger Bench
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Forensic Science, Interpretation of Section 45 Evidence Act
Criminal Law Evidence Law Admissibility of Expert Evidence Forensic Science Interpretation of Section 45 Evidence Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STATE (THROUGH CBI/NEW DELHI)

Appellant

S.J. Choudhary

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 1987 / Appeal From Order of Delhi High Court Dismissing Revision Petition in Limine; Appeal Referred to Larger Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the opinion of a typescript expert is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Ratio Decidendi

No final ratio decidendi as the question—whether opinion of a typescript expert is admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act—is not decided and is referred for decision by a larger Bench.

Court Disposition

Appeal referred to Larger Bench

Orders

  • Question of admissibility of expert opinion on typescript referred for decision by larger Bench.
  • Matter to be posted for an early hearing so that trial is not further delayed.