Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for SONU @ AMAR VS STATE OF HARYANA...
2017 5 Supreme 816 : An objection relating to the mode or method of proof must be raised at the time the document is marked as an exhibit and not later. If an objection is not taken at the trial stage, it cannot be raised at the appellate stage because the failure to object amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof. The crucial test is whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the document. Once a document is admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that the mode of proof is irregular or insufficient cannot be allowed to be raised at any subsequent stage. This rule is based on principles of fair play and ensures that the party tendering the evidence has an opportunity to rectify any deficiency.Checking relevance for Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta VS New Era Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. ...
2015 0 Supreme(SC) 688 : An objection as to the mode of proof should be taken when the evidence is tendered and not subsequently. If a party fails to object promptly, it amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof, especially in cases where the document itself is admissible in evidence. The crucial test is whether an objection, if raised at the appropriate time, would have allowed the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to a regular mode of proof. Failure to object becomes fatal because it allows the opposing party to act on the assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. This principle applies particularly to objections concerning the irregular or insufficient mode of proving a document, which cannot be raised after the document has been marked as an exhibit and admitted in evidence.Checking relevance for Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju VS State (NCT of Delhi)...
2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1195 : An objection relating to the mode or method of proof, such as non-production of certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cannot be raised at the appellate stage if it was not raised at the time of marking the document before the Trial Court. The crucial test is whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the document. Since the objection was not raised at trial, it cannot be permitted at the appellate stage, as it relates to procedural mode of proof rather than inherent inadmissibility of the document. This principle applies to call detail records (CDRs), which are not inherently inadmissible, and thus the objection on grounds of non-compliance with Section 65-B(4) is not maintainable at appellate level.Checking relevance for R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple...
2003 8 Supreme 193 : An objection to the mode of proof should be raised before the evidence is tendered and once a document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. This rule is based on fair play, as failure to object promptly amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof, and the omission to object becomes fatal because it allows the party tendering the evidence to act on the assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. A prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, as it enables the court to decide on admissibility immediately and provides an opportunity to seek indulgence for a regular mode of proof.Checking relevance for Sundar @ Sundarrajan VS State by Inspector of Police...
2023 2 Supreme 671 : An objection relating to the mode or method of proof has to be raised at the time of marking the document as an exhibit and not later. The crucial test is whether the defect could have been cured at the stage of marking the document. Objections regarding the mode or method of proof are procedural and, if not taken at the trial, cannot be permitted at the appellate stage. This is because allowing such objections at a belated stage would deprive the other party of the opportunity to rectify the deficiency. However, in exceptional cases, trial courts may allow the prosecution to provide a Section 65B certificate at a later stage if it does not cause serious or irreversible prejudice to the accused, after balancing the rights of the parties and ensuring a fair trial.
