Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 464 (RAJ)

Dr. Hari Singh Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

2011-03-01

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 07.10.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has permitted the Public Prosecutor to produce secondary evidence with regard to the search warrant, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the accused petitioner is facing trial in case No.57/2002 pending before the Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Kota. On 07.06.2010, during the trial, the Public prosecutor moved an application before the learned trial Court for permitting him to produce secondary evidence on record. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 07.10.2010 allowed the application dated 07.06.2010 and permitted the Public Prosecutor to produce the secondary evidence. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the report received from the Labour Court, Bharatpur was to the effect that after searching for the search warrant, the same could not be discovered. According to the learned counsel this is insufficient report as the Labour Court no where wrote that the search warrant has been destroyed or misplaced. Therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified in permitting a secondary evidence to be permitted. 4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. 5. Section 65 of the Evidence Act is as under:- 65. Therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified in permitting a secondary evidence to be permitted. 4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. 5. Section 65 of the Evidence Act is as under:- 65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given - Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document in the following cases: (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power - of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person does not produce it; (b) When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable; (e) When the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74; (f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence; (g) When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collections. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the documents is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. 6. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. 6. Section 65 (c) of the Act requires that when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason, not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time, then the Court may permit the secondary evidence to be produced. 7. In the present case, a letter had been written to the Labour Court asking the Labour Court to seek a report with regard to search warrant. However, according to the letter dated 18.07.2007 written by the Labour Court, it had clearly stated that despite the search for the same in the office, it could not be discovered / located. Thus, it is obvious that according to the Labour Court a search was carried out and yet the search warrant could not be located. Hence, the Public prosecutor was certainly justified in requesting that he be permitted to submit carbon copies of the search warrant and the same should be taken on record as secondary evidence. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 8. Hence, this petition devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******