Broad construction of expert evidence law admits typewriter identification opinion as relevant scientific evidence.

The opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible as expert evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act because the term "science" is of wide import and includes scientific examination of typewriting and identification of the machine used. The Court read the provision in a contemporary, updating manner to reflect technological development, and held that typewriting identification falls within the scope of expert opinion contemplated by the section. The contrary view was therefore incorrect, and the expert opinion was treated as relevant and admissible evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible in evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: Section 45 makes relevant the opinions of persons specially skilled in foreign law, science, art, handwriting, or finger impressions when the court has to form an opinion on such matters. The expression "science" is of wide import and is not to be given a narrow meaning. Examination of typewriting and identification of the typewriter on which a questioned document was typed is based on scientific study of the peculiar features and individuality of typewriters, and therefore falls within the field of science contemplated by Section 45. The provision, being part of an ongoing Act, must be read in a contemporary and updating manner so as to accommodate developments in technology. On that basis, the opinion of a typewriter expert is relevant and admissible as expert evidence.

Conclusion: The opinion of a typewriter expert is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the contrary view was incorrect.

Ratio Decidendi: Expert opinion is admissible under Section 45 when it concerns a scientific subject, and the expression "science" must be construed broadly enough to include typewriting identification.

---