It is the duty of an expert to provide the judge with necessary scientific criteria to test the accuracy of their expert conclusion, and enable the judge to form an independent judgment.
The Court also held that an expert is not a witness of fact and their evidence of advisory character. While examining the opinion of the District Horticulture Officer, the Court held that a person can qualify as a witness if they have undertaken a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience or skill. According to the prosecution, the evidence of this expert showed that the quantity of scabbed apple brought by the accused was grossly inflated. The Court examined the evidence presented by a District Horticulture Officer on his opinion on the fruit-bearing capacity of orchards which had been afflicted by the disease. The accused were charged with corruption and criminal conspiracy for showing inflated quantities of diseased apples which the State Government under its economic policy would buy from the apple-growers.
0 kommentar(er)
