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

1992 Supreme(Kar) 66

M. MANOHAR – Appellant
Versus
T. K. MILLS – Respondent


Advocates:
JAYARAM NAIDU

K. J. SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) IN the course of examination-in-chief of P. W-1, Manohar, the petitioner has, while giving secondary evidence of the unproduced document, took out the sheets of paper containing notes of inspection of the documents said to be originals, referred to it in extenso, virtually reading it out in order to give the oral accounts of the contents of the unproduced documents which were seen and read by him. This has been objected to by Mr. S. G. Sundaraswamy, the senior counsel appearing for the respondent-Company on the ground that the witness does not really refresh his memory, but substitutes for his memory, the sheets of paper which contains notes/jottings.

( 2 ) MR. Udaya Holla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is referring to the notes of inspection of documents made at his dictation to one Mr. Shankar Gupta who assisted him, for refreshing his memory while giving his evidence as oral accounts of the contents of document (unproduced) by way of secondary evidence. He has further argued that notes of inspection of documents is made by P. W-1 could be referred to and read out by him as and when he has to give oral account


















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