Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Umesh Kumar (Supra.) by submitting that even if the documents are procured by illegal means, the same may be admitted in evidence if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. I have perused the said the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"35. It is a settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained. However, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation. This Court repelled the contention that obtaining evidence illegally by using tape recordings or photographs offends Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India as acquiring the evidence by such methods was not the procedure established by law."

25. In the aforesaid cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if a document is procured by illegal means the same may be accepted in evidence if found relevant for adjudication of the issue and its genuineness is not doubted.

26. However, the respondent-CCL has challenged the admissibility of the said note sheet in the present case contending that it is an internal document of the company which has been procured by the petitioner through illegal means. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondent-CCL is that the note sheet which has been heavily relied upon by the petitioner is merely a noting in the departmental file prepared by a low ranking officer, holding the post of Deputy Manager (M & S Operations) in pursuance of the representation of the petitioner seeking extension of time, which has no legal significance, except being an opinion of the officer concerned. Moreover, Clause 16.9 of the Scheme clearly provides that any amendment or modification in the terms and conditions in the Scheme shall be the discretion of the CIL/coal company. It is further contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions has held that the noting of an officer in a file is nothing more than an opinion of an officer for internal use and unless final decision is taken, the same cannot be taken into cognizance in exercise of power of judicial review. In support of the said contention, learned senior counsel for the respondent-CCL puts reliance on the following judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court.