Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for SONU @ AMAR VS STATE OF HARYANA...

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. ...

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)...

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...

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...

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.

• Objection to Mode of Proof – Timing and WaiverMain points and insights:
• Objection to the mode of proof must be raised at the earliest opportunity, specifically before the document is admitted and marked as an exhibit. If not, it is deemed waived and cannot be raised later, including on appeal ["Narendra Prasad v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Express Towers Nariman Point Bombay - Madras"]; ["Mohan Singh vs State - Himachal Pradesh"]; ["Bhavnaben D/o Mulubhai Jalu VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"]; ["RAMNIKLAL SHIVLAL BAVISHI SINCE DECEASED(DECEASED) vs TULSIDAS CHAKUBHAI GORVADIYA SINCE DECEASED(DECEASED) - Gujarat"].
• As per the landmark case AIR 1943 PC 83, failure to object when a document is tendered results in forfeiting the right to challenge the mode of proof subsequently ["Mohan Singh vs State - Himachal Pradesh"]; ["Narendra Prasad v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Express Towers Nariman Point Bombay - Madras"].
• The objection should be directed towards the mode of proof, which is procedural in nature, and such procedural objections are waived if not timely raised ["Narendra Prasad v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Express Towers Nariman Point Bombay - Madras"]; ["RAMNIKLAL SHIVLAL BAVISHI SINCE DECEASED(DECEASED) vs TULSIDAS CHAKUBHAI GORVADIYA SINCE DECEASED(DECEASED) - Gujarat"].
• The courts emphasize that objections related to irregularity or insufficiency in proof must be made during the evidence stage; otherwise, the party loses the right to contest the mode of proof later ["N. Divakaran, Son of Late Narayanan VS David Livingston - Kerala"]; ["Bhavnaben D/o Mulubhai Jalu VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"]; [""].

• Raising objections after evidence is closed or after documents are admitted is generally considered too late, and courts discourage raising such objections at appellate stages unless they were made timely during trial ["Narendra Prasad v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Express Towers Nariman Point Bombay - Madras"]; ["N. Divakaran, Son of Late Narayanan VS David Livingston - Kerala"]; [""].

• Distinction between Relevancy, Admissibility, and Mode of ProofMain points and insights:

• Relevancy and admissibility of evidence are separate from the mode of proof. Relevancy can be objected to at any stage, but the mode of proof must be challenged early ["Narendra Prasad v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Express Towers Nariman Point Bombay - Madras"]; ["Mohan Singh vs State - Himachal Pradesh"].
• The proof of a document involves two aspects: authenticity and mode of proof. The court must decide whether the mode of proof is proper when the document is first introduced ["Multiform Chemicals Limited vs Adrian Machado - Supreme Court"]; ["N. Divakaran, Son of Late Narayanan VS David Livingston - Kerala"].
• When a document is marked subject to proof, the court needs to determine whether the objection concerns its authenticity or the mode of proof. This distinction influences whether the objection is procedural or substantive ["Multiform Chemicals Limited vs Adrian Machado - Supreme Court"].

• The law mandates that objections to the mode of proof, if any, should be raised before the document is admitted, and such procedural objections are waived if not raised timely ["Narendra Prasad v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Express Towers Nariman Point Bombay - Madras"]; ["Bhavnaben D/o Mulubhai Jalu VS State Of Gujarat - Gujarat"]; ["RAMNIKLAL SHIVLAL BAVISHI SINCE DECEASED(DECEASED) vs TULSIDAS CHAKUBHAI GORVADIYA SINCE DECEASED(DECEASED) - Gujarat"].

• Practical Implication and Court PracticeMain points and insights:

• Courts require that objections to the mode of proof be made at the time of tendering or before the document is marked as an exhibit. If not, the party cannot later object, even at appellate stages ["Narendra Prasad v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Express Towers Nariman Point Bombay - Madras"]; ["State of Gujarat VS Valji Poona & Company - Gujarat"]; ["Raghav Das Chela Mahant Mathura Das VS Kali Ram Das Chela Mahant Ganga Ram Das Deceased - Allahabad"].
• The rationale is to allow the opposing party to cure defects or resort to proper proof methods when objections are timely raised, preventing unnecessary delays or procedural unfairness [""]; ["Narendra Prasad v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Express Towers Nariman Point Bombay - Madras"].
• Objections to proof are procedural and should be dealt with immediately during trial, not deferred to appeal, to ensure fairness and proper trial management ["Narendra Prasad v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited Express Towers Nariman Point Bombay - Madras"]; ["N. Divakaran, Son of Late Narayanan VS David Livingston - Kerala"].

Conclusion:Objections as to the mode of proof must be raised promptly at the time of evidence tendering, before the document is admitted and marked as exhibit. Failure to do so results in waiver, and such procedural objections cannot generally be raised at a later stage, including on appeal. The law distinguishes between objections to admissibility and to the mode of proof, emphasizing the importance of timely objection to preserve the right to challenge the proof method used.