Rekha Jain vs Anil Jain - 2022 Supreme(Sikk) 7

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Sikk) 7

BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN
Rekha Jain – Appellant
Versus
Anil Jain – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Karma Tshering Tamang, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Ms. Gita Bista, Advocate, for the Respondents

Judgement Key Points

Section 23(2) of the Evidence Act pertains to the manner in which evidence is to be taken in a proceeding, particularly emphasizing that the court has the authority to examine witnesses, ask questions, and direct the manner of recording evidence. This subsection underscores the court's discretion to ensure that the evidence is collected in a manner that serves the interests of justice, especially in summary proceedings or cases where formal rules of evidence are relaxed.

In the context of the case, the relevance of section 23(2) lies in its recognition that the court can permit the examination of witnesses and the submission of evidence beyond strict procedural formalities. The court's discretion under this section supports the view that procedural technicalities should not obstruct the pursuit of truth or justice. It also aligns with the principle that the court can lay down its own procedures, provided the fundamental objective of a fair trial is maintained (!) .

Furthermore, the case highlights that the court's authority under section 23(2) enables it to allow evidence to be led in a manner that may include documents filed on behalf of parties, as long as the relevance and fairness are preserved. This flexibility ensures that procedural rules do not become a barrier to substantive justice, especially in proceedings where the interests of vulnerable parties, such as victims of domestic violence, are involved.

Overall, the case demonstrates that section 23(2) provides a statutory basis for the court's discretion in managing evidence, emphasizing that procedural rules are subordinate to the overarching goal of delivering justice. This aligns with the broader principle that courts have the authority to adapt procedural techniques to the circumstances of each case, ensuring that procedural formalities do not hinder the substantive delivery of justice (!) .

Table of Content
1. challenge to rejection of evidence application (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. application rejected due to procedural issues (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments on admissibility and jurisdiction (Para 6 , 7)
4. court’s discretion to amend applications (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
5. procedural requirements for domestic violence act (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. high court's power of superintendence (Para 16)
7. restoration of evidence application (Para 17)
8. outcome of the petition (Para 18)

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge an order dated 20.08.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting the petitioner's application for leading evidence.

2. The petitioner had preferred a petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Domestic Violence Act) seeking reliefs under Section 17 , 18, 19 (f), 20 and 21 thereof.

3. On 24.09.2019 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed interim orders of protection in favour of the petitioner.

4. On 23.07.2021, during the proceedings, the petitioner moved an application to place certain electronic evidence (the application) throu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document