The main legal point established in the judgment is the competency of a witness to vouchsafe for documents and the admissibility of documents as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act.

1. This revision arises against the order passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai dated 10.08.2011, on a memo filed by the petitioners, who are the accused 4 & 5 in C.C.No.82 of 2001 pending trial for the offences under Sections 120-B r/w. 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and u/s.13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, objecting to the marking of certain documents which were seized under the seizure memo Ex.B630.

2. The documents sought to be marked were orders passed by the Commercial Tax Department and it was contended that P.W.58, an official of the Vigilance Department could not speak to the contents thereof. It was further informed that such documents were xerox copies and therefore, not primary evidence. It also was complained that it was the prosecution practice to mark inadmissible documents or mark admissible documents through incompetent witness and make the witnesses read the contents and record the same as evidence. It was stated that the statement prepared by P.W.58 at the instance of the Investigating Officer during investigation had been marked as Ex.P628 and Ex.P629 in the case. Further, the contents thereof had been read over by the witness during examination, inspite of the objections made by the defence. Therefore, the memo informed that the method adopted in the cases by the CBI is in gross violation of settled principles of law relating to recording of evidence.

3. The respondent through the learned Special Public Prosecutor informed that P.W.58 was a competent witness. The documents were xerox copies, certified by the officials of the accused company. They had been handed over in the presence of the witness P.W.58 and hence, he could speak to such fact. It was also contended that Ex.P628 and Ex.P629 were in the handwriting and under the signature of P.W.58 and therefore, the same could be proved through him. In response, it is contended that the company disputed the certification of the documents by its officials and even if so, it would still be in the nature of secondary evidence. Section 63 of the Evidence Act would have to be satisfied.

1) The findings of the court below read as follows:

"33. Now, coming back to the question of adjudication of the present Memo filed by the accused A4 and A5 in which the said accused had taken a stand that P.W.58 is not a competent witness to vouchsafe for the contents of the documents and prosecution cannot mark the xerox copies of the documents without satisfying the conditions u/s. 65 of Evidence Act required for letting in secondary evidence. The same cannot be sustained since the documents marked already through P.W.58 i.e. Ex.P.628 & Ex.P.629 are in the very handwriting of P.W.58 and documents sought to be marked not only bears the signatures of official A.Mohana Sundaram, Internal Auditor, Gemini Colour Lab, Chennai, of the accused company, but also bears the signatures of P.W.58.

34. The specific case of the prosecution is that the documents sought to be marked through P.W.58 are the documents attested by A.Mohanasundaram, Internal Auditor of the accused company, handed over to the I.O of this case at the time of seizure proceedings in the presence of P.W.58 who is in the box before this Court in the middle of his chief examination in a case pending right from 2001 onwards. It is also pertinent to note here that it is not the case of the accused that the said A.Mohanasundaram is not the Accountant or Internal Auditor of the accused company. It is also to be borne in mind that it is not the case of the defence that the documents which are sought to be marked on the side of the prosecution are forged documents. Therefore, the documents including attested xerox copies, certified carbon copies as in the present case can be of course allowed to be marked.

The words relevant and Facts in issue have been described u/s.3(2) of Indian Evidence Act.

"Relevant'- One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected