Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SUDESH BANSAL
Purushottam Lal, S/o Shri Charansingh – Appellant
Versus
Ritu Banawat W/o Shri Rishi Bansal – Respondent
Question 1? How to admissibly produce secondary evidence of documents obtained from public offices in election petitions under Rule 93(2)(k) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Question 2? What is the status of documents obtained under RTI Act, 2005 for admissibility as secondary evidence under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023? Question 3? How to treat non-mandatory notice under Section 64 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 when Returning Officer is a party to the election petition?
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 elect
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
