Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla and others, it is a case under the representation of the People Act, a similar question came for consideration. At page 897 of the reports, their Lordships have held thus:

"But the fact that a document was procured by improper or even illegal means will not be a bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness proved."

The above decision was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pushpadevi M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan, . That is a case under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. In para 20 of the judgment, their Lordships have held thus:

...(H)e has no discretion to refuse to admit relevant admissible evidence on the ground that it was obtained by improper or unfair means. The court is not concerned with how it was obtained.
There is a long line of authority to support the opinion that the court is not concerned with how evidence is obtained. The rule is however subject to an exception. The judge has a discretion to exclude evidence procured, after the commencement of alleged offence, which although technically admissible appears to the judge to be unfair. The classical example of such a case is where the prejudicial effect of such evidence would be out of proportion to its evidential value. Coming nearer home, this Court in Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla, held that the fact that a document which was procured by improper or even illegal means could not bar its admissibility provided its relevance and genuineness were proved."

13. The first Finding of the lower court that because the documents are in the illegal unauthorised custody of the first plaintiff, they cannot be admitted in evidence, cannot be accepted. The court is only concerned about the truth of the case and if the documents is genuine, the court is not concerned how it was procured.

14. The second finding of the lower Court is that being a public document, the certified copy alone is to be marked. The said finding also cannot legally stand. The certified copies are filed only for the purpose of convenience and the law does not say that a public document cannot be produced in original and it is not admissible. In fact, it is the original document that is admissible and Section 77 of the Evidence Act is the enabling provision which entitles a party to produce a certified copy of the original public document. Sarkar on Evidence Act' commenting of Section 77 has said thus: