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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3027

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sarang V. Kotwal, J
M/S GOURMET RENAISSANCE PVT LTD . THROUGH SUNIEL HIROO BHARWANI AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR – Respondent
WP 681 / 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kartik Garg, Bhakti Bhanushali, Sonal Doshi
For the Respondents: Arfan Sait, Sushama Satpute, Shakuntala Shetty

The trial court must determine the admissibility of exhibited documents, including secondary or electronic evidence, prior to the commencement of the cross-examination of witnesses to ensure that the cross-examination is restricted to admissible records only.

Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Admissibility of documents - Production of secondary evidence - Criminal trial procedure - Trial courts are obligated to decide on the admissibility of documents, particularly where photocopies are exhibited, before the commencement of the cross-examination of the relevant witness to ensure trial integrity and avoid prejudice. (Paras 3, 6, 7)

(B) Practice and Procedure - Exhibition of documents - Where photocopies are marked as exhibits, the trial court must facilitate the comparison with original documents or certified copies as permissible under the relevant evidence laws to determine their admissibility prior to the cross-examination phase. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, as accused in a proceeding under the primary cheque dishonour legislation, challenged an order passed by the trial court that permitted the marking and exhibiting of several photocopies related to loan transactions and electronic records. The petitioners contended that these documents were not admissible as primary evidence in their current state.

Findings of Court:
The court clarified that while the prosecution may produce secondary materials, the trial judge must oversee the process of comparing these against originals or certified copies. The presiding officer is mandated to resolve all objections regarding the admissibility of these documents before the cross-examination of the witness begins, in alignment with established guidelines for criminal trials.

Issues: The main issues were the validity of exhibiting photocopies of documents without the underlying originals being processed and the appropriate stage at which the court must rule on the admissibility of such evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: In line with established guidelines to ensure the fairness of criminal trials, it is imperative that the presiding officer adjudicates on the admissibility of evidence before cross-examination starts, ensuring that the defense is not prejudiced by inadmissible material being present on the record.

Result: Petition disposed of with directions for the trial court to allow the production of original documents or certified copies and to decide upon their admissibility before the commencement of cross-examination.

P.C. :

1. The Petitioners are the original accused in S.C.C. No.6352 of 2017, before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik, facing prosecution u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial proceeded and the complainant’s witness is being examined. During the course of examination, certain documents were produced on record. They were given exhibit numbers. The Petitioners have objection for exhibiting those documents. The prayer made in this Petition is restricted to setting aside the order exhibiting the photocopies of the documents at Ex.38 to 43 and 54. Those documents are as follows:

Ex.38 – Resolution giving authority to file complaint.

Ex.39 – Another resolution giving authority to file complaint.

Ex.40 – Loan application.

Ex.41 – Sanctioning of loan and scrutiny statement.

Ex.42 – Promissory note.

Ex.43 – Loan agreement.

Ex.54 – Account statement.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 i.e. the original complainant submitted that the original documents regarding Ex.38, 39, 41, 42 and 43 are available with the bank and those can be produced before the Court and by comparing with the original, their photocopies can be taken on record. She submitted that Ex.40 is the application for loan and the original is filed in a different Court. The bank can make an application for certified copy and necessary procedure can be followed to take the secondary evidence on record in respect of Ex.40. Ex.54 is in the form of electronic record and by following provision of section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, even that document can be brought on record.

3. I have considered these submissions. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ (CRL) No.1/2017, In re : To Issue Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies in Criminal Trials Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others wherein it was directed that the presiding officer should decide the objections to question during the course of the proceeding, or failing it at the end of the deposition of the concerned witness.

4. These guidelines were issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court so that the cross-examination is restricted to the admissible documents.

5. Considering these documents and submissions made by learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 regarding availability of the documents, the Petition can be decided in the following terms.

6. Though the copies at Ex.38 to 43 and 54 are already exhibited, the Respondent No.1 is permitted to produce the original documents in the Court for comparison with the photocopies which can be exhibited and read in evidence by following provisions of the Evidence Act. Their admissibility shall be decided by the trial Court before the cross examination of that witness commences.

7. Separate exhibits Nos. be given to those documents, if necessary. The admissibility of the exhibited document at Ex.38 to 43 and 54 would be subject to production of the original documents or certified copies permissible to be tendered under the Evidence Act. The question of admissibility shall be decided before commencement of cross examination of that witness.

8. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

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