State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jai Lal and Ors., 1999

• In 1983, the apple orchards in different areas of the State of HP were afflicted by a disease called "scab" rendering the fruits unfit for human consumption. To prevent the financial losses to the growers and the danger to public health if the scab affected apples are sold in markets, the State Government took a policy decision to purchase the diseased fruits and destroy the same.
• The facts of the case are that, Complaints of large-scale bungling and misappropriation of Government money were received from different quarters.
• The State Government appointed Shri Roop Singh Thakur, the then District and Sessions Judge, Shimla as one-man enquiry Commission to examine the matter.
• The Commission came to the conclusion that some persons had obtained false payments by showing inflated quantities of scabbed apple and had, thereby cheated the State Government.
• The Commission had also come to the conclusion that the bungling had been done in connivance with the members of the team engaged in the procurement and destruction of the fruits.
• On the basis of the said enquiry report a number of criminal complaints were lodged against the public servants who were members of the team and also the concerned growers. The cases were sent to the court of the Special Judge, Shimla for trial. 
• They were charged for offences punishable Under Section 468, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
• The accused persons denied the charges. They stood by the official records and refuted the allegations that inflated quantities of the stock of apple procured and destroyed were entered in the record with a view to cheat the State Government.
• The trial court judge accepted the testimony of Mr. P.C. Panwar, the District Horticulture Officer, Shimla, who was examined as an expert for assessing the fruit bearing capacity of the orchards in question. Charges under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC were established against all the accused persons and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with 120-B IPC against the public servants concerned. But the charge under Section 468 IPC was not established. 
• The High Court rejecting the view of the trial court held that the evidence of Mr. P.C. Panwar fell very much short of the requirement of law and therefore could not be relied upon. Hence, acquitted the accused persons of all the charges.

Whether  the evidence of Shri P.C. Panwar has examined by the prosecution as an expert? 

ARGUMENT:- 

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant was that the learned trial judge had thoroughly discussed the evidence and given cogent reasons for accepting the prosecution case while the High Court without closely examining the reasons stated in the trial court judgment, on a superficial approach has rejected the prosecution case and acquitted the accused persons.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents strongly urged that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home any of the charges against the accused persons and the High Court has rightly acquitted them.

Referring to the evidence of Shri P.C. Panwar, the learned Counsel contended that he can neither be taken as an expert for assessment of maximum productive capacity of apple trees nor does his evidence reveal that inflated stock was entered in the official records.

JUDGMENT:- 

The judgment of the High Court that No doubt as an officer of the Horticulture Department of the State Government he might have acquired some experience in the matter but that is not sufficient to make him an expert in the field and to give the label of 'expert evidence' to his testimony.

• A perusal of the report submitted by Shri Panwar glaring omissions and inadequacies come to light. From the report it appears that against several trees in the orchards in question the productive capacity is shown as nil. It is neither explained in the report nor in the evidence of the expert in what circumstance some trees in the orchard were branded by him as non-productive.
• The entire basis for the assessment of productivity as evident from his deposition is counting of spurs on the trees the details of which are wanting in many of the data sheets attached to the report.
• An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case.
• The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case.
• The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.
• The Supreme Court acquitted all the charges as there is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, in support of the charge of conspiracy amongst the accused persons to cheat the State exchequer. Court observed that it was the duty of the non-official members of the team to certify about the genuineness of the growers and the stock of scabbed apple brought by them having been grown in their orchards. There is no stipulation in the modalities to show that the public servants who are strangers to the area had no role to play in this matter. 

The Court Conclude in this case that the only guidance in the section is that he should be a person especially skilled on the matter. The competency of the fitness of a witness as an expert is to be decided by the judge. Thus, no formal qualifications are necessary to qualify a witness as an expert.

There must be something to show that the expert is a skilled and has an adequate knowledge of the subject. The Credibility of such witness depends on reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which forms on the basis of his conclusion.