Karnataka High Court
Sri.Venkateshwarlu S/O Sambaiah vs M/S Bayer Crop Science India Ltd on 1 June, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
*1, IN THE} HIGH COURT' OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED 'E'H§S THE 13? DAY 0? JUNE 2099 BEFORE THE HOFFBLE iV§R.J'i.}ST'ICE SUBHASH s;f;§;m :1 cmmmn PETITION »' BETW EEN: Sr.i.VeI1katesh1Va.r1u, S/ofiambaiah, Pmprietor, M 1' s.Venkatc:shwara Traders, Agfid about 60 years, J
R/atflouse N(3.3-419, Main Road, Perk.-al, ~. V Waxangal District, . if = _ v_ «V "
Andra Pradesh. .. P£+:'I';'1':0NER (By Sri. A.Mad_'£ius;J;d£i£i:1a Razjj,-.._Advi}_ "
AND;
M] 3 Bayer Cxfgfi SCi'|?.'3};'{V3tg:..A}'I:?di'é*.__'.]'.)i'.(.i'., Formerly knoWz1_a:s.. _ Avcnties. Crop scic11c£2'VI'n(ii;i~3. Lifiliilfiti.
-Agrevov »»ii':§.dia' Lim:§.'£eci',--' . ,.. ..... .. . Havi;rzg"'its i~1"€:gd;'.()m<:e at "Aventiss Ccxztéx" ,N0V. 5*4}-'A_, " Mathuradass vaan;i_T.Rca,;',»--..And1;gfi Karla Road, Andi1e:i.i5}asi,.'f»?ELii33bai ~-- 4430 093. Regional Ofiim "313 "-Sheallft: Bt'gmi'""No.8?, I{.R.Road, ~ «..N:::-£06 &.":2oi2*, 1; Floor, ' - Bagxgalore 4560 004.
A «Re-p by its Business Manager, __§u1r.;i:.A.iéasheed P.A.E-{olden .. RESPONDENT A' - This {lriminal Petition is filed under Samoa 432 of <31". 9:3. 'égraymg to set E.{$i£ifZ the ordar dtd:10.{)2.2{)09 passed by the:
"'iea1f'n.ed XX} A&<:i3...Chief metrapolitan Magistrate in CC Nos 3932,' 2003 rcjecfing the appficatrion filed by the pefifioner under section 65 9f the Ixxdian Evidence Act. Allow this (3-riminal Petition with costs.
This Petition coming on for Admission this éay, the Court made that? foiicwing:
GRDER Petitiener has called in question the ordsr in C.C.N0.3932/2003 an the file 0f_§j<;}§I Ac§'ci1uei:a1"'~{:.:::4.ivig"'V 1' Bangalore.
2. Pefiéioner had filed an 2{p'p1jcati%)n 'u;1Vde:' : V<;sf : L' the Indian Evidence Act {'A{:t" 'h seekilig permission in produce 0-f_ ~ Sufififiéss Policy Guideiincs. Said app1icatiQ13._§=_z;2.Vs oemplaixmnt. The 1£f2£iI'I}.EEd 'bylzthei "ozfigr rejectfzd the said application by V
3. pafitioner submits that, Xf3§'{)X cepy is a.scc01:: ¢1;-aq? cvitie£jva3,s: i%ithin the meaning of Secfion 63 of the f20uI'"§'?§ii{)§;l1d have accepted that: $a:ié xercx copy as a'"$;3%1C(3Ii{§§¥I"'\;?"V€?%3i{1§I1C€3 under Section 65 of the Act. In this regaiiflliiéz _;{f1 a juégment of tha Apex Court reported in AIR 999 s<:: ..z 6§3' in the mattsr of NAWAB swag ~--vs- EVDERJIT 4, Decision of the Apex Cami": Relates to the rejecfion cf V note gzrosduced by the tenant can thg ground that, the applicant was uot given an opportunity. The ailegation in the F3 ris.' (J. K -3- saié case is that, the landloré was in possession of the oxigjnal and tenant had pnwucttd the copy" of the same ané sought 1:0 get it market} as secondaxy evidence under Ssctien 65 of Act. '§'}1c Apex Court having mgard to the facts. and the case: fmmd that, the tenant, who had pxoéu-fiéd cepy, had no opporttmity, it is only Qzrthat was allcxsmed. I «' V M :3. Section 63 of the Act tzvidcnce inferaiictz sacendgaxy [_ includes, certified copies given undexf'-~ 1:316 Ap1*ov2.§sioi1$;~g;'GQ~ ies made fizom the oggg all by Inechanigai v_t:{§f;inée1ves Zi11S12I'€ the §_CC11l'EiCV tbs c;i¥I:§i,--«w:;;i3gzi Co;5ia$ ircemnamd with such comes. By reading of " dear that. copies made by mechanjica1?Aprocess,Vif'f$1e:§;* themselves are inszxring the accuracy "i:.21;«:V' copies can be aoczepteé as secondaxy e§?idéz1cé un c;}s1*£§i:efion 63 of the Act. Xerox copy" does not insure the a£:m_3ra¢:y~Qfj'.ii£ie original, even if it is prepared by mechanical " ggmcess, " tfiém is a possibflity of manipulation ané (301111:
'--.&§iQma%icaHy cannot acceyt unless it is proved showing that it is V. griccumts copy of the original. in this .0336, responeient «- fompiainant has seriousiy éisputed the existence Gf such copy. Even assuming that, the allztged xerox copy of the original and the azfial are in nossession of the compiainant, aothiflg ,;»e-