( 51 ) THE learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Award has not beenduly authenticated. The learned Senior Counsel referred to Section 78 of theevidence Act, 1872 for this purpose. In support of his submission, the learned Seniorcounsel relied upon the following rulings :1. Collector of Cawnpore and Others v. Jugalkishore,air 1928 Allahabad355. 2. The Municipal Committee, Akola v. Madhava Wasudeo and Another,air 1951 Nag 464. 3. Mathuradas v. The State, AIR 1954 Nag 296. 4. Janu Khan and Others v. The State, AIR 1960 Pat 213.

( 52 ) ALLAHABAD High Court in AIR 1928 Allahabad 355 (supra) held that in orderto prove Notification by a Government, Government Gazette should be produced.

( 53 ) THE Nagpur High Court in AIR 1951 Nagpur 465 (supra) held that undersection 78 (1) of the Evidence Act, 1872 the only way of proving a Notification is byproducing a copy of the Notification. And that has been done by the petitioner.

( 54 ) IN AIR 1954 Nag 296 (supra) the Nagpur High Court laid down thesame proposition.

( 55 ) IN AIR 1960 Pat 213 (supra) the Patna High Court held that theproduction of secondary evidence may be accepted if it is done in accordance withsection 65 of the Evi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document