Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.25 seconds)Section 115 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 293 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 22 October, 2008
In the case of Nirmal Vs. State of Punjab 2002 Cri LJ 447 , the
Punjab and Haryana High Court after analyzing Section 293 Cr.P.C. held that
this provision applies only to certain experts like Chemical Examiner or
Assistant Chemical Examiner to the Government, Chief Inspector of
Explosives, Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State
Forensic Science Laboratory and the Serologist to the Government, besides
Director of Haffkeine Institute, Bombay and the report of the hand writing
expert, even if it has been given by the expert working in the Forensic
Science laboratory, would not be per se admissible under Section 293
Cr.P.C., unless the maker of it is summoned and examined as a witness and
the other side is given opportunity to cross-examine the witness. The Court
further observed that there was absolutely no occasion for the learned
Sessions Judge to have observed that the report of the hand writing expert
was admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. and could be allowed to be
tendered into evidence without summoning the author of the report.
The State Of Maharashtra vs Ashok Damu Suryawanshi And Ors on 4 January, 2022
For these
observations, the High Court relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court
delivered in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Damu and others 2000(2)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NITESH PANDEY
Signing time: 18-06-2025
14:33:00
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25766
7 CRA-6369-2024
Recent Criminal Reports 781, where their Lordships held that from the
description of hand writing expert report it can be gathered that his report
would not fall within the purview of Section 293 Cr.P.C. and hence without
examining the expert as a witness in the Court, no reliance could be placed
on his place.
Kuldip Singh vs Malik Singh Cheema, Lehmber Singh And ... on 21 August, 2007
In the case of Kuldip Singh Vs. Malik Singh Cheema, Lehmber
Singh and Pal Singh (2007) 08 P&H CK 0138, the Court observed that the
report of hand writing expert is an opinion evidence of an expert and
admissible under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and can never be a
conclusive piece of evidence; while giving his report, such an expert gives
his finding on some of the peculiar features noticed by him in the
handwriting or the signatures, but his opinion if not taken on oath would not
be an evidence; this apart, an opportunity to cross-examine this witness, if the
prosecution or other party wishes to rely on it, would also be legally
essential; when hand writing experts reports contains an opinion apart from
the observation or the findings then right to cross examination can not be
denied and if denied can lead to vitiation of the proceedings; the accused
cannot be denied the right to test the opinion of an expert more particularly
when conviction is sought on the sole basis of such report.
1