Documents obtained under the Right to Information Act are admissible as secondary evidence without the need for comparison with the original.

ORDER

By this petition preferred under Article 227 for the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the XXIInd District Judge, Indore, whereby the objection preferred by him to the admissibility of a document in the shape of an affidavit produced by respondent No. 1 has been rejected

2. The proceeding are an election petition filed under Section 441 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 read with Municipal Corporation Election Petition Rules, 1963 by respondent No.1. During course of proceedings before the trial Court respondent No.1 filed an affidavit of the petitioner produced by him before the Election Officer which was marked as Exhibit P/5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an objection submitting that since the affidavit was a true copy the same could not have been exhibited in evidence. The same is not a public document hence for proving the contents of the same it was imperative for the original to have been called for. Merely by marking as an exhibit the document does become admissible in evidence.

3. The objection was contested by respondent No.1 and has been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order by observing that the document has been obtained under the Right to Information Act and has been produced by respondent No.1 in the Court hence the same is admissible as the secondary evidence and there is no requirement of its comparison with original.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was always open for the petitioner to raise objection as regards admissibility of the document at any stage of the proceedings even if the same had been marked as an exhibit. The document is not a public document but is a private document and being a true copy it is inadmissible in evidence since the same has not been compared with the original. The document was wholly inadmissible in evidence but has been illegally admitted in evidence by the trial Court. Reliance has been placed by him on the decisions of the Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami, (2003)8 SCC 752, of this Court in Narayan Singh vs. Kallaram 2015 (2) MPLJ 337, Antar Singh Darbar vs. Kailash Vijayvargiya, 2016(3) MPLJ 170 and Datti Kameswari vs.

Singam Rao Sarsth AIR 2016 HYD 112, Kumarpal N. Shah vs. M/s Universal AIR 2019 BOM 290 and Manuel Barreto Xavier vs. Narayan Biku Naik & others, 1997 AIHC 959.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the document produced by respondent No.1 was obtained under the Right to Information Act and as such is covered under Section 65 of the Evidence Act and was admissible as secondary evidence and there was on need to compare the same with the original. The trial Court had correctly received the document in evidence and has further not committed any error in rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner in view of which this petition deserved to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed him on the decisions of Saurav Das vs. Union of India & Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) NO.1126 of 2022, Narayan Singh vs. Kallaram 2015 (2) MPLJ 337, Narattam Das & Ors. Vs. MD. Masaddar Ali Barbhuiya & Ors. (1991) 1 Gauhati Law Reports, 197 and Tukaram S. Dighole vs. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010) 4 SCC 329.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7. It cannot be disputed that by mere marking of a document as an exhibit the same does not stand proved automatically. Even if the document is exhibited, objection as regard its admissibility can be taken at any time which the petitioner was entitled to. The observation of the trial Court in this regard is hence incorrect.

8. However, in Narayansingh (Supra) the precise issue was whether the certified copy of document obtained under Right to Information Act can be admitted as secondary evidence. The said question was answered by this Court as under:

“7. I deem it proper to reproduce the rele