Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1) The findings of the court below read as follows:
"33.Now, coming back to the question of adjudication of the present Memo filed by the accused A4 and A5 in which the said accused had taken a stand that P.W.58 is not a competent witness to vouchsafe for the contents of the documents and prosecution cannot mark the xerox copies of the documents without satisfying the conditions u/s. 65 of Evidence Act required for letting in secondary evidence. The same cannot be sustained since the documents marked already through P.W.58 i.e. Ex.P.628 & Ex.P.629 are in the very handwriting of P.W.58 and documents sought to be marked not only bears the signatures of official A.Mohana Sundaram, Internal Auditor, Gemini Colour Lab, Chennai, of the accused company, but also bears the signatures of P.W.58.
34.The specific case of the prosecution is that the documents sought to be marked through P.W.58 are the documents attested by A.Mohanasundaram, Internal Auditor of the accused company, handed over to the I.O of this case at the time of seizure proceedings in the presence of P.W.58 who is in the box before this Court in the middle of his chief examination in a case pending right from 2001 onwards. It is also pertinent to note here that it is not the case of the accused that the said A.Mohanasundaram is not the Accountant or Internal Auditor of the accused company. It is also to be borne in mind that it is not the case of the defence that the documents which are sought to be marked on the side of the prosecution are forged documents. Therefore, the documents including attested xerox copies, certified carbon copies as in the present case can be of course allowed to be marked.

36.The word 'Evidence' has also been defined under section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which read as follows:

"Evidence"  'Evidence" means and includes.
1) all statements which the Court permits or required to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of act under inquiry:
2) (all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the court) Such documents are called documentary evidence.

37.'Facts in issue' in this case is the seizure of documents by the I.O. in the presence of P.W.58, handed over by A.Mohanasundaram, Internal Auditor of the accused company. As stated already as far as Ex.P.628 and Ex.P.629 are concerned, P.W.58 is the author of the said documents and the same are in the very own handwriting of P.W.58. Therefore, the objection raised by the accused at para-6 of the memo is not maintainable. As far as the objection raised at para 3 of the memo with regard to Ex.P.630, it is a seizure memo u/s.172 of Cr.P.C. and P.W.58 has evidently set his hand as a witness to the seizure proceedings conducted by the I.O. in the premises of the accused, as per which para 8(c) of Ex.P.630 also discloses that the person who handed over the document was A.Mohanasundaram, Official of the accused company, with his signature and P.W.58 has signed at the first and last page of Ex.P630.