KESHAV DUTT vs STATE OF HARYANA

The Supreme Court addressed two key issues: the admissibility of handwriting expert opinions without their examination and the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, despite acquittal under Section 7. The Court held that expert testimony must be examined for admissibility and clarified that a conviction under Section 13(1)(d) can stand independently of a charge under Section 7. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to uphold the conviction of the Appellant and Kewal Kumar.