ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.Ramalingeswara Rao, J.
Datti Kameswari —Petitioner
versus
Marrapu Lakshmunaidu & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Revision Petition Nos.3031 and 3048 of 2015
Decided on 11.12.2015
(ii) Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 65 — Certified Copy — Xerox copy certified by designated PIO under RTI Act of private documents — HELD — True copies of public documents certified by designated Information Officer can be taken as certified copies of public documents. [Para 14]
Result: Petition 3031/2015 dismissed
A.Ramalingeswara Rao, J.—These two Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order as they both involve a decision on the nature of the document obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in civil proceedings.
C.R.P.No.3031 of 2015:
2. The revision petitioner is the 5th respondent in E.P.No.1 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judges Court, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District. The 1st respondent in the revision petition filed an Election Petition challenging the election of the 5th respondent, who was a successful candidate for the post of Member of Mandal Praja Parishad Territorial Constituency of Gavarampeta Territorial Constituency, Jiyyammavalasa Mandal Praja Parishad in the elections held in the year 2014. The 1st respondent herein, as the petitioner in the said Election Petition wanted to mark the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as exhibits for which the petitioner herein raised an objection on the ground that the said documents are neither certified copies nor originals. The Tribunal overruled the objection raised by the petitioner herein and allowed the marking of documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the custodian of the documents on the ground that the petitioner herein is not disputing the correctness of those entries and the documents can be permitted to be marked as a single exhibit, by order dated 16-06- 2015. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
C.R.P.No.3048 of 2015:
3. The petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petition are the landlords in R.C.No.305 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad who filed a petition under Section 4 (1) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 for fixation of fair rent in respect of a shop admeasuring 240 sft. of super built-up area bearing Door No.22-5-73/2, situated at Balaji Market, Charkaman, Hyderabad. The respondent-tenant filed certain documents obtained under the Right to Information Act and an objection was taken by the petitioner herein that those documents cannot be marked. The Rent Controller overruled the objection by order dated 19-06-2015 and observed that those documents obtained under the Right to Information Act are admissible as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Evidence Act, 1872 so long as the Court has no reason to doubt that the said certified copies are not faithful and accurate reproduction of the original documents in custody of Government Departments.
4. Thus, in both cases, the nature of the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and their admissibility was in issue. In both cases, the learned counsel for the objectors relied on a decision of this Court in K. Bhaskar Rao v. K.A. Rama Rao (2010 (5) ALD 339) and submitted that the xerox copies of the documents which are certified as true copies under the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot be equated with certified copies mentioned in the Evidence Act.
5. In the light of the above issue, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the respective cases.
6. The Right to Information Act was enacted in the year 2005 and came into force with effect from 15-06-2005. It provides for designation of a Public Information Officer for obtaining information with exemptions from such disclosure and the grounds for rejection in appropriate cases. Section 22 of the Act says that the provisions of the said Act shall have overriding effect on the provisions of other enactments including Official Secrets Act, which are not inconsistent.
7. Chapter-V of the Evidence Act, 1872 deals with documentary evidence. Section 61 says that the contents of the documents may be proved either by primary evidence or by secondary evidence. The primary evidence is stated to be the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court under Section 62 of the Act. Secondary evidence is defined under Section 63 of the Act. As per
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.