Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SUDESH BANSAL, J.
Purushottam Lal, S/o Shri Charansingh - Petitioner
Versus
Ritu Banawat W/o Shri Rishi Bansal & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Election Petition No. 1 Of 2023
Decided On : 15-04-2025
(A) Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 93(2)(k) - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Sections 58(i), 60(f), and 64 - Application for secondary evidence - Petitioner allowed to produce secondary evidence of documents obtained from public offices, as genuineness not disputed - Objections regarding admissibility to be considered at the time of exhibiting documents. (Paras 4, 10, 13)
(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Documents obtained under RTI cannot be equated with certified copies under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - Respondent's objections regarding notice under Section 64 deemed non-mandatory as Returning Officer is a party to the election petition. (Paras 9, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought permission to produce secondary evidence of documents related to an election petition, which were obtained from public offices. The respondent raised objections regarding the admissibility of these documents.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the genuineness of the documents was not in question and allowed the petitioner to produce secondary evidence, reserving the respondent's right to object to admissibility later.
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of documents obtained under RTI and the necessity of notice under Section 64 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that documents obtained from public offices are admissible as secondary evidence, and the requirement for notice under Section 64 is not mandatory in this context.
Result: Applications allowed.
Key Points: - The petitioner was allowed to produce secondary evidence of documents obtained from public offices, with objections to admissibility reserved for exhibit stage (!) (!) . - Documents obtained under RTI Act, 2005 are not equated with certified copies under Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; objections on RTI documents to be considered at exhibit time (!) (!) . - Notice under Section 64 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 was deemed non-mandatory since Returning Officer is a party to the petition and did not deny the documents as secondary evidence (!) .
Order :
(SUDESH BANSAL, J.)
1. Heard the petitioner and counsel for the respondent No.1 on the applications (4/2025 & 5/2025).
2. Application No.5/2025 filed by petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 r/w Section 151 CPC, 1908, to take on record the copy of application dated 11.11.2023 through which petitioner obtained the certified copies of few documents, enclosed with the election petition, under Rule 93 (2)([k) of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, copy of receipt of depositing the requisite fee, copy of the Register showing the certified copies and Certificate issued under Section 63 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
3. Respondent has not filed reply to the application No.5/2025.
4. The documents sought to be produced along with the application are evidence at least to consider another application No.4/2025, seeking permission to produce secondary evidence and genuineness of documents are not in question, hence same is allowed. The documents are allowed to be taken on record.
5. Accordingly, the application No.5/2025 stands disposed of.
6. Vide application No.4/2025, petitioner is praying to grant permission to lead secondary evidence in various number of documents enclosed with the election petition and referred in the application.
7. It has been pointed out that the documents referred in para No.2 were obtained under Rule 93 (2)([k) of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, documents referred in para 3 of the application were obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) and documents referred in para 4 were obtained under Rule 12.1 (A) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990.
8. It has been urged that documents were issued by the Government authorities from the Public Office and fall within purview of Section 58 (i) r/w Section 60(f) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, hence petitioner be granted permission to adduce these documents as secondary evidence.
9. Respondent No.1 who is contesting party to the election petition has filed reply to the application No.4/2025, raising first objection that as far as documents referred in para No.3 of the application and allegedly obtained under Rule 93 (2)([k) of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 are concerned, same are suspicious for the reason that in the previous application, petitioner alleged to obtain these documents under RTI Act, 2005.
Second objection is that these documents were provided to petitioner under RTI, 2005 are not admissible in evidence since same cannot be equated with the certified copies issued under Section 58 (I) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Third objection is that petitioner has not served any notice under Section 64 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to the respondent No.11- Returning Officer from whose possession, the copies of such documents have allegedly been obtained.
10. Having adverted to the rival contentions of both the parties, this Court is of considered opinion that the documents on which secondary evidence has been prayed for, are admittedly in power and possession of Returning Officer and genuineness of documents, have not been doubted by the respondent. The objection in respect of admissibility of documents provided under RTI is concerned, can be raised and considered at the time of exhibiting the documents.
11. As far as documents referred in para 3 of the application, contrary stand of petitioner in obtaining such documents under Rule 93 (2)([k) of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 is concerned, application dated 11.11.2023 has already been placed on record by the petitioner along with the application No.5/2025, which has been taken on record. Hence, as far as these documents are concerned, there is no contrary stand of petitioner to obtain such documents under Rule 93 (2)([k) of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
12. In respect of non-issuance of notice under Section 64 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, in the given facts and circumstances, same cannot be held mandatory since the respondent No.11-Returning Officer is party to the electi
Documents obtained from public offices are admissible as secondary evidence, and objections regarding their admissibility can be raised later.
Inspection of election-related documents must be justified by adequate and precise allegations, ensuring integrity and purity of the electoral process.
The rejection of a petition for secondary evidence based on a misconception of applicable legal provisions constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting correction under Article....
Secondary evidence – Photocopies of bank drafts and money receipts come within purview of Section 65 of Evidence Act, 1872.
The court maintains that necessary documents for adjudication should not be refused if they are not in custody of a party, emphasizing the duty to ensure a just outcome.
Secondary evidence is only admissible under specific conditions outlined in Section 65 of the Evidence Act; blanket permission for secondary evidence without details of missing originals is erroneous....
The Revisional Court must allow parties to prove documents taken on record as evidence, ensuring fairness in election proceedings.
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
