SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Kar) 468

N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA
A. A. KILACHAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Advocates:
C.H.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, S.P.P.JADHAV

N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) H. C. G. P. to take notice. At the admission stage itself as desired by learned government Pleader and Sri C. H, Hanumantharaya case heard on merits. Notice to respondents dispensed with.

( 2 ) ORDER under challenge relates to refusal to issue copy of the document produced, which reads as follows:"heard regarding the application filed for order of certified copy of documents. Since the documents are not marked, certified copies cannot be granted. Hence application rejected".

( 3 ) APPROACH of the learned Magistrate in not considering the request of the petitioners runs contrary to Rule 2, Chapter 14 of Criminal Rules of Practice of 1968.

( 4 ) CHAPTER XIV, Rule 2 reads as follows;"parties to a case are entitled at any stage of the proceeding to obtain copies of the record of a case, including exhibits which have been admitted in evidence". Further Sections 74 and 76 of Indian Evidence Act enable anyone to seek and obtain certified copy from a Court or an authority who in charge of such documents if the same are in the nature of public documents, irrespective of the fact the same are marked or otherwise. Section 74 of Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:"




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top