SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(MP) 166

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sujoy Paul, J.
Narayan Singh v. Kallaram @ Kalluram Kushwaha and others
Writ Petition No.7860 of 2014 (G); Decided on 19.3.2015.

Advocates:
Manish Sharma for petitioner; J. P. Shrivastava for respondent No.1.

Headnote:Evidence Act, 1872 -- Ss.65 and 63 -- Right to Information Act, 2005 -- S.2(j) -- certified copies of documents obtained under Right to Information Act -- can be admitted as secondary evidence -- no need to compare the same with originals. [Para 6

        lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 65 rFkk 63 & lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 & /kkjk 2¼¥½ & lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vfHkizkIr nLrkostksa dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi;k¡ & f}rh;d lk{; ds :i esa xzg.k dh tk ldrh gSa & ewy ds lkFk mudk feyku djus dh vko’;drk ugha gSA iSjk 6

       

ORDER

1. The singular question involved in this petition is whether the certified copy of documents obtained under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity, the 'Act of 2005') can be admitted as secondary evidence ?

2. The defendant No.1 preferred an application under section 65 of the Evidence Act before the Court below. It is contended in the said application that the petitioner/defendant No.1 has obtained certified copies of map of the house and building construction permission from the Nagar Nigam. These documents are obtained under the Act of 2005 and, therefore, the same be accepted as secondary evidence.

3. The Court below by order dated 4.12.2014 allowed the said application preferred under section 65 of the Evidence Act (Annexure P-4) dated 22.9.2014. Criticizing this order, Shri Manish Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the documents obtained under the Act of 2005 do not fall within the ambit of sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act. Hence, the same cannot be treated as secondary evidence. In addition, he submits that copies obtained under the Act of 2005 were not compared with the original documents and, therefore, it does not fulfil the requirement of section 63 of the Evidence Act. Lastly, it is contended that the copies obtained under the Act of 2005 are, at best, “attested” or “true” copies and cannot be treated as certified copies.

4. Shri J.P.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the order and relied on certain provisions of the Act of 2005.

5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. I deem it proper to reproduce the relevant provisions of Evidence Act and the Act of 2005 before dealing with rival contentions of the parties.

section 65 (f) of Evidence Act reads as under :-

“65 (f). when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence;

In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.”

“Right to Information” is defined in section 2 (j) of the Act of 2005. Relevant portion reads as under :-

(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to - -

(i) xx xx xx

(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records.

8. Clause (f) of section 65 of Evidence Act makes it crystal clear that a certified copy permitted under the Evidence Act or by any other law in force can be treated as secondary evidence. Right to Information Act, in my view, falls within the ambit of “by any other law in force in India”. The definition of “right to information” makes it clear that certified copies of documents are given to the citizens under their right to obtain information. In my view, the Court below has rightly opined that the documents can be admitted as secondary evidence. I do not see any merit in the contention that the documents obtained under the Act of 2005 are either true copies or attested copies. The definition aforesaid shows that the same are certified copies. Even otherwise, it is interesting to note that in Black Dictionary, the meaning of “certified copy” is as under :-

“Certified copy” - a copy of a document or record, signed or certified as a true copy by the officer to whose custody original is entrusted.”

Since the documents are covered under section 65 of the Evidence Act, there was no need to compare the same with the originals.

9. As analyzed above, I find no legal error in the order of the Court below, which warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court below has taken a plausible view, which is in accordance with law. Petition is meritless and is hereby dismissed. No cost.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top