Karnataka High Court
Sri C Akbar Basha vs Smt Shakunthala Gupta on 9 September, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 AIR CC 421 (KAR), 2010 (4) AIR KANT HCR 992, AIR 2011 (NOC) (SUPP.) 806 (KAR.), (2011) 2 KANT LJ 523, (2011) 2 ICC 553
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
K .
E3'
'" 3
2%
4»
IN THE HIGH courrr or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TH1s THE 9"' my or SEPTEMBER,
BEFORE °"'"'
V
"'''W:«» h ,;¢_x""'
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.Nf ,vET\suc3oPAr:Qis;VGtowona-E_V "'
WRIT PETITION No.2252cr./zoio7(G'M}cT@ tA3t._§1g
BETWEEN:
Sri C.Akbar Basha,
Aged about 50 years, 'A :4. _
M/s. Leather & Leather"'C~raft"P_v;}.,' :Ltd;,f
No.55, Tannery Road. .' 1
Nagawara, _ Z
Bangalore -
A :PETITIONER
(By Sri_IrsEha'dT_VAn'i*é1'ed A-nusijltana, Advs.)
AND: T ' V 1' V' 1' Q.
1. Smt. Shakuynth. '4aE'.Gu.f§.ta,
Pr0.prietri'x,._' '-
iv;/5. Ganga M..aruti,V
V-No.23, EbrahIm"'S'aheb Street,
»_Sra Kanyéaka Mansion,
- 'k3aEn'g.al'o.re._-- 560 001.
. "-tReprase,nteVd~"by G.P.A.Holder
7 And aE.sor'i_t_fTe Manager,
S-ri D__;P.Gupta.
Sr: Pafrlk Arannaf
V M'/s. Leather & Leather Craft Pvt. Ltd.,
'N0.55, Tannery Road,
Nagawara,
'T Bangalore - 560 045.
3. Sri N.Balakrishna,
M/s. Leather & Leather Craft Pvt. Ltd.,
No.55, Tannery Road,
Nagawara,
Bangalore - 560 045.
(By Sri H.S.Prashanth for M/s. Ravi
'. ~: " =
This petition is filed under A'rtit*i.es 22.61
the Constitution of India pra_yi--n,g to "set aside/"'~..quash the'
order dated 6.1.2010 vide Annexure - E3~.pa'ssed by the III
Additional City Civil Judge,_..._B"anga_lore City, passed in
O.S.No.420/2006 between Smt. "S.hai§u-nthala Gupta vs. Sri
C.Akbar Basha and oth'er.s.__ . "
This petition comi.n.g:'_on 'ioAri.,prei'i.rni'na.ry hearing in 'B'
group this day,..the_Coi_jrt m_a:de,_th.e..fol'lo'wing.
'l the plaintiff. Petitioner,
responden--t.s*2_ V&_'3iV.'.ar:§}the defendants, in a suit for
reco.\_;{e'ryx.of m'o'n_e:y. 'By filing written statement suit has
Issues having been framed, the trial has
i"cornrne'nCae_~d.. iliuring the course of examination of PW-1, a
certi'fied-..':<:o'py' of the cheque was sought to be exhibited, to
,fiwhic_h anobjection was raised by the learned counsel for
'defendants 1 & 2. The further examination was
-deferred and the objection was heard. The point raised for
/K"
consideration was, Whether the certified copy of the
cheque in question can be marked as exhibit on"-of
the plaintiff?
2. The plaintiff did not ,thg-
cheque, whereas, he produced a certified V"islsue3d."'by"'Vt?
the Court. The objection wa.sV"o_\V/errxdledi and the
certified copy was permj_ttedl"to'V'arr:-aérkedlvahs "exhibit on
behalf of the plaintiff its contents.
Said order has petition.
3. learned advocate
appeaiflbilnovfort.fi;1he__upetit:i:oner contended that, the objection
was to cheque being forged &
tampered a4nd_'in~"the' circumstances, the original alone
'-..g;holul:Cl be plI'oduced""8iémarked and not a certified copy and
in'.o\}errLr--i.i,n'gVu objection, the trial Court has committed
irrat,i.onaiity"a:nd illegality.
A. Sri H.S.Prashanth, learned counsel appearing
i'.-f"or"t'r1e 15" respondent, on the other hand contended that,
it -the original of the cheque is in the criminal Court, /4"' wherefrom the certified copy has been obtained and the iaw does not lay a bar to mark the certified co--py--i:'a--sp:"ayn exhibit, since production of secondary .--y4'evidenc'e'i:i_'s "
permissible.
S. The trial Court has held. that, to whether the cheque is m'isu'sed or"--f_orgé-id be ascertained after a ful§.¢Afled§'ed".'Vi.tii'a'l"t'.a.ndthe "document sought to be marked issued by a Court of law, ca
6. ieiarwned counsel, I have pe V
7. "o.f:..'i'the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for4.ishoi'r't 'the "AcVt_f_)___,éy.deais with documentary evidence. »S:v.'t'3--»'l_VVth.ereof_lays down that:
A "6_1.~ pica of contents of documents.- The contents efdocuments may be proved either by primary or by it ' secondary evidence." k X y As per S, 62 of the Act, primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the' Section 63 categorizes five kinds of secondary; "
Section 64 iays down that by, 6' primary evidence except in the cas:eS"menti_,oned., foilowing sections. However,.L4"i:i.ause." Ce)' 65, 6' which enumerates the,casesin-uw'hic'h__seconda.ry.vv'evidence relating to documents" may carves out an exception to document is a "public admissibie even thoughthey""or'i'g:i'1;Ii;al._ still in existence and availahle. : ' T3.V"74_ofithe'*"}i\ct defines what are known as ;,_dpcumenVts"'.'*"As per S. 75 of the Evidence Act, ail ilotheif than those stated in S. 74 are private dioicuimentsirfrom this point of view, the document in 'v._,questieni:.s certainiy a private document. Secondary evidence, as is we}! settled, as a general rule, is admissible only in the absence of primary 9 ,-
evidence. If the originai cheque itself is found to be inadmissibie on account of the nature of objection--s"ra_'is:ed_, the party is not entitied to introduce secondar~;f'evidée'n.ce ' its contents. 5.63 declares that seciondarjvh it be given in the absence of that requires to be given first, probeir of its " it absence is given. The defini.tio:ngv._in--..._the.i said section is exhaustive which 'evidence 'means and inciudes' and then"'foiioi¥ysV_:th.e.five of secondary evidence. aw. said section must be fuif_i,i.h?«d can be admitted.
Secondary contents of the document cannot be non production of the originai _ being 'first ac:ncounted_for in such a manner as to bring .Awit.h;in .one-or'~«the other cases provided in the section. In "t~iiiAs--..conrieCt_io~n','it is necessary to notice the decision of the Apex in the case of ASHOK DULICHAND Vs. H"'hf;M.c.ogAH'AvLAL DUBE & ANOTHER - 1976(1) SCR 246 .' viheréin it has been heid as foilowsz / "According to clause (a) of section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be given Vo_f"the existence. condition or contents of a (I10C11i'.¥.1..(-_3i"i»?.,:'\'iv.f,1"iL~P,fi V. the original is shown or appears V' possession or power of the person aga;i'i1st.:'_Whom* the document is sought to be pro§*ed,_or:of'_a1*iy'p.e'rso.n' of reach of. or not subject to, the lprocessof the ., or of an)' 13€rson 1egai'1¥:*'*b9un¢i" to 'and = i' when. after the notice mentioned indsection such person does not produce" it It
10. The admitteVd_'ifa.ct f:the~.piré'se..'nt case is that the original cri-minai; when conditions prescribedin --:jS'.;55.'a:'eT*satisfiedjg the document can be admitted as se'c;a'i'1dairy'"e§i"d.e'r1ce. Since clause (a) of 8.65 has not bieeéni sati's_fied,»* 'objection raised being tenable, ougiiit to'~haveV'been accepted and upheld. In not doing so, the ri_ai~A.Coiie=t_has committed an irrationai act. There is i"'ingis--di'recti'o»n_ olnvthe part of the Triai Court. The impugned it it ' ilwteifferience. K order suffer from the infirmity warranting w In the resuit, the writ petition stands aiiowed and the impugned order stands quaéhed.
However, it is open to the 15' respondersiflpiaEdn:t't-ffttoo: "
either produce the primary evidenc'e'br"s:et:ond_;ar$/evidefsceg as the case may be, by foiiowing under iaw.