Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 22 February, 2001
7.I am unable to understand the decision of the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal as absolving the trial Judge of the obligation in all cases to render a ruling on the question of admissibility. Uncertainty ought to be avoided in for the contestants. If a document is on the face of it and clearly admissible or inadmissible, the Court need not and should not hesitate to straightaway give a ruling on that aspect. Only when the dispute about admissibility raised by a contestant possess problems warranting detailed arguments and decision, need the Court postpone the decision on such objections. A ritualistic and myopic understanding of the dictum would leave the Courts with all sorts of unnecessary inadmissible materials vexatiously introduced into evidence. Taking advantage of the ruling white paper or unattested xerox copies which are not admissible at all may be stealthily introduced into evidence making it difficult later on to separate the admissible from the inadmissible and leaving it uncertain to the parties as to what evidence has really come in and what had not come in. I say so only to clarify that the observations in paras-12 and 13 of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (supra) should not be understood to mean that no ruling need or can ever be given hereafter on the objections raised as and when they are raised. It cannot be lost sight of that the Supreme Court's observations are intended to expedite trial and to avoid the possibility of remand. That is no licence to a party to introduce into evidence all inadmissible material in the hope that till ruling is given ultimately the records can be permitted to swell and the issue confused.
But the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.