Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: human errors in Rajiv Kumar vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 2 August, 2017Matching Fragments
26. Undisputedly, the proposal Ext. A-16 dated 28.05.1994 is marked by cuttings and overwritings over two words and one figure. As pointed out by the High Court, the cuttings, overwritings and interlineations appear to be quite deliberate and forceful which makes CA NO.251 OF 2017 WITH CA NO.252 OF 2017 it impossible to read the underneath writings. We may usefully refer to the following observations of the High Court:-
“no doubt, possibility of human error cannot be ignored in day-to-day affairs, but the manner of cuttings and overwritings do create suspicion in the mind of a reasonable prudent man to suggest that the intention of the appellants lacks bona fide”.