section 45 of Evidence Act.,
anjaneyulu
(Querist) 19 February 2010
This query is : Resolved
dear sir, i am appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, suit filed for recovery of money basing on the pronote,the defendant filed a Sec.45 Evi. petition that when the revenue stamp was printed, actually pronote date is 12-11-2001 but the expert says that the revenue stamp was printed in the year 2002, if, i want to get win, what i will do and how much the judge considers the expert opinion, with relevan citations.
adv. rajeev ( rajoo )
(Expert) 20 February 2010
when revenue stamp is of 2002 how come you filed the case without going thru., it. Your doucment amounts to created.
B K Raghavendra Rao
(Expert) 20 February 2010
Have you affixed revenue stamps on both sides of the pronote - Demand Note as well as receipt side.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 20 February 2010
There is serious doubt over the document being relied upon by you. If the stamp was printed in 2002, how can you get it pasted in 2001?
Sachin Bhatia
(Expert) 20 February 2010
How it was pasted in 2001 as the stamp was printed in 2002.
Parveen Kr. Aggarwal
(Expert) 22 February 2010
The evidence of an expert is not conclusive the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S. Gopal Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 2184)has observed that "The evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of evidence and the courts do not generally consider it as offering "conclusive" proof and therefore safe to rely upon the same without seeking independent and reliable corroboration. In Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab (AIR 1977 SC 1091), while dealing with the evidence of a handwriting expert, this Court opined: ... We think it would be extremely hazardous to condemn the appellant merely on the strength of opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U.P. (AIR 1957 SC 381) that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Mohd. Isa (AIR 1963 SC 1728) that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (AIR 1964 SC 529) where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. (AIR 1967 SC 1326) and it uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence,direct or circumstantial."
In view of the observations of the Apex Court, if the defendant is relying only on the report (opinion) of the expert and you have led other evidence to prove your case which establishes your case then solely on the opinion of the expert, the suit cannot be dismissed.
Stamps are printed in Government press. Why the record of the Government press has not been produced?
