Back
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
G. Chandrabhanu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Rep. By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala, Through Dy. S. P. , Vacb – Respondent
How must the contents of documents be proved under the Indian Evidence Act? What is required to admit photocopies as secondary evidence when originals are alleged to be destroyed? When can an appellate court order a retrial under Section 386 of the Cr.P.C.?
Key Points: - The appeals challenge conviction under PC Act Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) and IPC Sections 465, 468, 471 for forging Essentiality Certificates to obtain medical reimbursement of Rs.23,381/- [15000535230001][15000535230002][15000535230003]. - Prosecution relied on photocopies of Essentiality Certificates (c-series of Exts.P2 to P50) as originals were allegedly destroyed by Accountant General's office, proved via Ext.P66 letter [15000535230007]. - Sections 59, 61, 62, 64, 65 of Evidence Act require document contents proved by primary evidence (originals) unless secondary evidence conditions met; photocopies inadmissible without proving non-availability of originals [15000535230008]. - Ext.P66 only mentions "vouchers" weeded out, not Essentiality Certificates; its contents not proved by examination of issuer or direct witness, hence no foundation for secondary evidence [15000535230010][15000535230011]. - Without legal proof that originals were destroyed, photocopies inadmissible; prosecution failed to prove forgery, leading to acquittal in all cases [15000535230012]. - Request for remand/retrial under Cr.P.C. Section 386 rejected as not exceptional case; cannot fill prosecution lacunae in accused's appeal, per principles from Ukha Kolhe and Nasib Singh [15000535230013][15000535230014][15000535230015][15000535230016]. - Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Crl.A Nos.692, 693, 694, 695, 700, 701, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 708, 709, 712, 713 & 714 of 2007
1. The above appeals have been filed challenging the common judgment passed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (for short 'the court below') in C.C.No.16/2003 to C.C.No.32/2003 dated 28.3.2007.
2. The appellant, in all the cases, is one and the same person. He faced the trial of 17 cases altogether with a similar set of allegations. The offences alleged in all the cases are under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act') and Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). The court below tried all 17 cases jointly. The evidence was recorded in C.C.No.16/2003. All the cases were disposed of by a common judgment. Since all the appeals are connected, I am also disposing of all the appeals together.
3. The appellant was working as Junior Superintendent in the office of the District Registrar (GL), Alappuzha, during the period from March 1992 to November 1993. The prosecution case is that, while the accused was working in the above capacity during the aforesaid
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
