The main legal point established in the judgment is that while oral contents of the documents can be given as secondary evidence, the reproduction of notes of the original document is not admissible as secondary evidence.

( 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 accounts to the contents of document as envisaged under Section 63 (5) read with Sections 159 and 160 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Holla relied on the provisions of Sections 159 and 160 of Evidence Act and contended that P. W-1 could depose to facts by looking into document (sheet of paper containing notes ). This is known as refreshing memory contemplated under Section 159 of the Evidence Act. Analysing the provision of Section 159 of the Act, Mr. Holla has submitted that the document is resorted to revive a faded memory and the witness swears from the actual recollection of the facts which the document evolves. In other words, the memory is restored by referring to the documents. Elaborating his arguments he relied on the Supreme Court decision reported in State of Andhra Pradesh v ganeswara Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1850. The Supreme Court has observed as follows:"where a witness has to depose to a large number of transactions and those transactions are referred to or mentioned either in the account books or in other documents there is nothing in wrong in allowing the witness to refer to the account books and the documents while answering the questions put to him in his examination. He cannot be expected to remember every transaction in all its details and Section 160 specifically permits a witness to testify the facts mentioned in the documents referred to in Section 159 although he has no recollection of the facts themselves if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document. Therefore, where an approver was allowed to refresh his memory while giving evidence, by referring extensively to the account books and documents produced in the case, the procedure adopted was held to be neither in violation of law nor an abuse of the powers of Court under Section 159. "he has also relied on the decision reported in Emperor v Mahadeo Dewod, AIR 1946 Bom. 189. In the said decision the Bombay High Court has observed as follows:"but Section 159, Evidence Act, says that when a witness is under examination he may refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory and that he may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct. The section does not require that the writing which is used to refresh his memory should itself be admissible in evidence. "yet another decision has relied on is AIR 1969 Tripura page 27. The High Court of Tripura has observed:"but, in the present case, P. W-2 (Shri Dhiresh Chandra Ghosh) appears to have refreshed his memory by looking into a certif