Sri.Venkateshwarlu S/O Sambaiah vs M/S Bayer Crop Science India Ltd on 1 June, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri.Venkateshwarlu S/O Sambaiah vs M/S Bayer Crop Science India Ltd on 1 June, 2009

Bench: Subhash B.Adi

-3-

{N THE) }:¥iGH COUR3' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TI~iiS THE 13"? DAY OF JUNE 2009

BEFORE

THE Ho:~:*BLE MR.JUS'I'§CE SUBHASH B.A,Di_ '  ~ 

 

BEETW EEN" :

S1*.i.Ve11kat€shwarh1,
S/o.Sa131ba1'ah, Pmprietor,
M] s.vez1ka1:esbwara Traders,
Aged about 66 years,
R/atliouscr No.3--419,
Main Road, Parka},
Warangai District,
Andra P'rad<::sh.

 '  PEITITIGNER
(By Sri. A.Ma(ihusi1€iIﬁ;e££ja Rae;   = 

AND: V
M] s Bayer 'Cr{>;§ 
Formerly knéwn as '  "  4' V

Avcnﬁcs Crop science Ex1cii;a1b'i."§'é5i1ited.
Agrevc) irxdia Lizniiaég " " '

V  ~H:¢3.ving~' its Qegé. Ofﬁtfe at__f£;venti<:s
" - V Ceﬁt.c:r"" N G54-}~'x~,A ¢ Matlmmdass

Vgsuargji Road,' 'Andheri I-iurlzs. Road,
Andtmzti E::1$'i.,_' n>:um}:ai - 400 993.
Regional 'Oﬁ<:z?f' 'at:

  "Shashija Bu.1r1i"fNo.87, i{.R.Rs:>ad,

139,205 3:: 2£:7,'1: Floor,

~  jj '33&nga}0re" e-7360 GEO4.
, _ " 'by .i_1;s Business Manager,
«M':"._S;A.F{asheed P.A.I~§c>lde:r. .. RESPONDENT

 This Criminal Petition is ﬁled under Section 482 of fl'.-12?. C.

 T - _ p'rayiing to set aside 1:116 order citd:10.{)2.'.2QG§ passed by the
   XXI Addi Chief Mt:-tgmpolitan i'V'§agistrat€:, Bangalore in CC
R0,: 3934/2603 rejccﬁng the application ﬂied by the peitiﬁoner

Under Sectian 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. Allow thia Crimina}



Petiﬁcm with casts and grant such other miiefs as this Court may
dcem ﬁt to grant in the circumstances of {he case.

This Petition coming on far Admission. this day, £:h.<i:._ Court
made the following:  

ORDER

Petitioner has called in quesﬁon the order _« V' in C.C.No.3934/2003 on the ﬁle '§{XI"\Addi£ioi:;l:i._ c,:;1x¥i:~'.r¢:;; Bangalore. A' b A. ». .

2. Petiticcner had ﬁied an aﬁpliéaﬁon v'{}i}i1V_(3;€:1":.V-S<3#..".:3,T?iOiZVl 65 of V the Indian Evidence Acf 'ff-X-::£:_?"' 'fQ'rL-: 4$1i§:iif?;) inﬁéitzlfa seeking germission to produce xemﬁj Bilsiness Policy Gtaidelines. .E3}':Z1":[V\3ﬁ.CE1tL'{)I1€V'5?lé1:S the comp1aina11t. The Eearntédm order rejected '£1112 said applicatimn A by a con.si{i«?§r1:t1 ' »jzi14:I:=; Léarnetd CaV1;Vzﬁse} for 3:321:52 peﬁtéanar submits that, xerox 'V.;:<;;§y.. evidence within the mzizaning of Saction {$3 of tlié shcuid have accepteé the said xemx C0333,' as 3. 5§'f:§COI}'§;i3£'_§;":""%é'ifi{1€I1C€ uﬁéer Section 65 of the Act. in this W " 'T 11% on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR ' 1668 in the matter of NAWAB SHVGH »»~»ys- IEVDERJIT 4». Decision of thg Apex Court: relates to the rejection sf mat note: pmducttd by the tenant on the ground that, the ,L& -3- appii-cant was not given an eppoxtunify. The allegation in the said case is that, the iandlord was in possession of the original and tenant had produced the copy of the same and S0i1g}1f'_'1j0 get it marked as secondary evidence under Section 6:3 of The Apex Court having regard to the facts and the case found that, the tenant, who: had' "flee végemx x Copy, had no oppertxmity, it is only 0}; "

WE.-13 allowed.

5. Section 63 of the are VtVIA1e vseconda1y evidence 1'ntera!ia secondary and includes, certiﬁed copies gi$Ie::.._u11de1r_tI1e 1}:'reviS;iee_1s,_ cebies made ﬁom the 0§'g:'zna.1 bx)'meei':aQiea11:'?ﬁpee$ees xxzljieh in themselves insure the accuracy 0ft11e«_ee13}_{. , :ea§_.{:em§a3:'e{i with such coggiesf 8};

leading of is ciear that; copies made by themselves are izasuring the accuracy 5:? copies can be accepted as seecmdaxry es;i§§1;:a:§§:c:e'u§§.§e?§$§4ej 65 of the Act. Xerox coyy does not insure ' the efkhe eriginal, even if it is prepared by mechanical is a pessibiiity ef manipulation mad Clourt cannot accept unless it is proved showing that it is "'--.e:e'V'eTecurate copy ef the original. In this case, respomieizt -- "$9-mpeem: has serieusly disputed the exisienee of such copy. Even assuming that, the aileged xerox eeey of the exiginal and .4- the originai Eff: in possession ef fhﬁ comglainant, nothjjixg preventad the petiﬁonez' takmg summons to the: comxpiainaxéiand it is also axgued by the lcaxneﬁ Counsel for the during the course of cross--examination of thc. "accé1fs&c.1, "a.. suggestion is made that there is such fif- nething prevents the peﬁiicmer test-:€k éppifapﬁatévj;reﬁ1:=:d3};. b'uf" ~. tbs xerox copy, as it is seen, it prove the V original. In 'such ci1'cumst.'si1¢:£:s, itV"\#o1:1's:3 ho; became Vséconéazy evidence.

5. In idenﬁziai V§'a<i:gm.<:nt 033' the Apex Court reporteei §? '-4'12-4 {he matter of ALL INDIA ANN} DEA?/'IDA the pmductkm of xercsx Qopiss of the '"contai.I:zs the speech of the rapondegxt [mi-reiiéa on the ground that it does not «V V ﬂ.1eE~vihaiucta' of evidence.

H '-- petitien is rejected.

Sd/~ Judge 1'{';s:M/~

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court