M. MANOHAR – Appellant
Versus
T. K. MILLS – Respondent
( 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.