Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Alok Verma, J.
Antar Singh Darbar v. Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya and others
Election Petition No.15 of 2014 (Indore); Decided on 2.2.2016.
Held : Taking these provisions of Indian Evidence Act into consideration, it is apparent that certified copies whether given under section 76 of Indian Evidence Act or under the provisions of Right to Information Act can only be admitted in evidence without examining the author of the documents and without comparing them with the original. For rest of the documents which are not public document, the original should be called before the court and the persons in whose possession such documents are kept, should be called for evidence. 2015(II) MPWN 31 relied on. (1981)1 SCC 560 followed.
(2) Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- S.99 -- objections raised against notice issued under -- there appears to be no harm in issuing notice to respondent -- who may cross-examine witnesses produced by petitioner -- who spoke against him -- objections raised by respondent rejected.
Held : If at this stage, any inference is given, this may affect decision of this Court on merit, and therefore, presently, there appears to be no harm in issuing the notice to Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan, who may cross-examine the witnesses produced by the petitioner who spoke against him in this petition. In this view of the matter, the objections raised by the counsel for the respondent are rejected. 2016(2) JLJ 129 relied on.
¼1½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 99 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 151 rFkk vk-7 fu-14¼3½ && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 35] 63] 65¼p½¼N½ rFkk 76 && lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 && /kkjk 2¼´k½ && vfèkfu;e 1951 ds v/khu tkjh lwpuk ds fo#} ;kfpdk && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 ds mica/kksa ds v/khu vfHkys[k ij yh xbZ nLrkostksa dh izfr;k¡ ;kph dks vf/kfu;e] 2005 ds v/khu nh xbZ && izekf.kr izfr;k¡ tks vf/kfu;e 1872 dh /kkjk 76 ds v/khu ;k vf/kfu;e 2005 ds v/khu nh xbZ dsoy lk{; esa xzg.k dh tk ldrh gSa && fcuk nLrkostksa ds ys[kd dk ijh{k.k djk, rFkk fcuk ewy ls mudh rqyuk fd, && nLrkost tks yksd nLrkost ugha gSa && U;k;ky; ds le{k ewy e¡xkuk pkfg, && O;fDr ftlds dCts esa ,sls nLrkost j[ks tkrs gSa && lk{; ds fy, cqykuk pkfg,A vfHkfu/kkZfjr % Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e ds bu mica/kksa dks fopkj esa ysrs gq,] ;g izdV gS fd lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 76 ds v/khu ;k lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vfèkfu;e ds v/khu nh xbZ izekf.kr izfr;k¡ nLrkostksa ds ys[kd dk ijh{k.k fd, fcuk ;k mudh ewy ls rqyuk fd, fcuk dsoy lk{; esa xzg.k dh tk ldrh gSaA 'ks"k nLrkostksa ds fy, tks yksd nLrkost ugha gSa] U;k;ky; ds le{k ewy e¡xkuk pkfg, rFkk O;fDr ftlds dCts esa ,sls nLrkost j[ks tkrs gSa] lk{; ds fy, cqykuk pkfg,A 2015 ¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 31 voyafcrA ¼1981½ 1 ,l lh lh 560 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14½ ¼2½ yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 && /kkjk 99 && mica/k ds v/khu tkjh lwpuk ds fo#} vk{ksi mBk, x, && izR;FkhZ dks lwpuk tkjh djus esa dksbZ vigkfu izrhr ugha && tks ;kph }kjk izLrqr lkf{k;ksa dk izfrijh{k.k dj ldrk gS && tks mlds fo#} cksys && izR;FkhZ }kjk mBk, x, vk{ksi [kkfjtA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;fn bl Lrj ij dksbZ fu"d"kZ fudkyk tkrk gS ;g bl U;k;ky; ds fofu'p; dks xq.kkxq.k ij izHkkfor dj ldrk gS rFkk blfy, blesa Jh f'kojkt flag pkSgku dks lwpuk tkjh djus esa dksbZ vigkfu izrhr ugha gksrh] tks ;kph }kjk izLrqr lkf{k;ksa dk izfrijh{k.k dj ldrs gSa tks bl ;kfpdk esa muds fo#} cksysA ekeys ds bl n`f"Vdks.k dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, izR;FkhZ ds dkmUlsy }kjk mBk, x, vk{ksi [kkfjt fd, tkrs gSaA 2016 ¼2½ ts ,y ts 129 voyafcrA
1. This order shall govern disposal of I.A. No.9282/2015 and the objection raised by the counsel for the respondent against issuance of notice under section 99 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “R.P. Act, 1951" in short) to Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan.
2. I.A. No.9282/2015 has been filed under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code read with section 35 of Indian Evidence Act.
3. According to the petitioner, this court vide order dated 11.9.2015 allowed the application (I.A. No.6303/2015) filed by the petitioner under Order 7 rule 14(3) read with section 151 CPC whereby the documents annexed with the application were allowed to be taken on record. Thereafter, on 23.11.2015, the Court allowed another application (I.A. No.7510/2015) filed under Order 7 rule 14 read with section 151 CPC whereby the additional documents annexed with the application were permitted to be taken on record. Copies of the documents which were taken on record were given to the petitioner under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, and thus, such documents being certified copies of their respective original documents need not be compared with the original documents and also examination of their authors is not necessary. The aforesaid documents are permissible under section 35 of Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, it is prayed that the documents produced by the petitioner may be allowed to be marked as exhibits in this election petition treating the same as admissible in the evidence. The application is supported by an affidavit.
4. Counsel for the respondent opposed the application on the ground that if such documents are permitted to be admitted in the evidence, this would be against the provisions of Indian Evidence Act.
5. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble apex Court in case of Harpal Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported at (1981)1 SCC 560, in which the age of the prosecutrix was to be decided by the Court. In this case, entries in the birth register, even in the absence of officers/chowkidar who recorded them, held admissible under section 35 of Indian Evidence Act, as they were made by the concerning officers in discharge of their official duties. On this point, he also relied upon a judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this court in case of Narayan Singh v. Kallaram @ Kalluram Kushwaha and others, reported at 2015(II) MPWN 31, in which it was held that the certified copies of documents obtained from Right to Information Act can be admitted as secondary evidence and needs not to compare the same from original.
6. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court in case of Narayan Singh (supra), referred to section 65 clause (e) and (f) of Indian Evidence At and held that if copies are obtained under Right to Information Act then such copies are admissible.
7. To see whether all the copies of documents which are obtained under Right to Information Act is admissible without examining the author of such documents and without comparing them with the original, the relevant provisions of Indian Evidence Act may be referred to here. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has quoted section 35 of Indian Evidence Act which may read as under :
“35. Relevancy of entry in public (record or an electronic record) made in performance of duty. -- An entry in any public or other official book, register or [record or an elctronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or (record or an electronic record) is kept, is itself a relevant fact.”
8. It is apparent that this section provides the relevancy of facts as a part of Chapter 2 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, it does not say that every document whether it is a public document or a private document can be admissible in evidence, if cop
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
