Complete study material on Evidence law

Oral & Documentary Evidence

CHAPTER-I

ORAL EVIDENCE

The facts judicially noticeable and facts admitted are need not to be proved. Oral and documentary evidence are not only media of proof. This chapter deals with the oral evidence only. It enacts two broad rules regard to oral evidence: firstly, that all facts except contents of documents may be proved by oral evidence, and secondly, that oral evidence in all cases must be direct and not hearsay.

The meaning of expression “oral evidence” is given along with the definition of the term “evidence” in Section 3 of Indian evidence act as-: “Evidence” means and includes -:

(1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence.

(2) [1][All documents including records produced for the inspection of the Court] such documents are called documentary evidence.

Section 59 of the Indian evidence act reads as-: All facts, except the contents of documents, [or electronic records,][2]may be proved by oral evidence.

Principle: this section lays down that all facts may be proved by oral evidence, except the contents of a document. The section is rather loosely worded as it makes an unqualified statement as regards the exclusion of oral evidence to prove the contents of a document. The true position is that oral evidence can be led as evidence relating to documents under section 65.

In general the evidence of a witness is given orally, and this means oral evidence. The expression oral evidence therefore includes the statement of witness before the court which the court either permits or requires them to make. The statement may be made by any method by which the witness is capable of making it. A witness who cannot speak may communicate of facts to the court by signs or by writings and in either case it will be regarded as oral evidence. Thus where a women was unable to speak because her throat was cut and she suggested the name of her assailant by the signs of her hand that was held to be a verbal statement relevant as a dying declaration.[3]Queen-empress v. Abdullah, (1885) 7 all.385(F.B) and chandrasekhera v. R,(1937) A.C 220 (P.C)

Where oral evidence is credible and cogent, medical evidence is to contrary is inconsequential. Only when medical evidence totally improbable oral evidence, adverse inference can be drawn.[4] Anil Kumar v. State of U.P, AIR 2004 S.C 4662 Evidentiary value of the oral testimony of an eye-witness cannot be diluted by reason of non-production of any document in support of a claim contrary to the oral testimony.[5]Anil Sharma v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2004 S.C 2294

Difference between ‘Relevancy’ & ‘Admissibility’-: there are following three differences between the relevancy and Admissibility -:

1) The first deals with the probative value of specific facts,

2) The second including artificial rules which do not profess to define probative value but yet aim at increasing or safeguarding it, and

3) The third covering all those rules which rest on extrinsic policies irrespective of probative values.

EVIDENTIARY VALUE-: Oral evidence is a much less satisfactory medium of proof than documentary proof. But justice can never be administered in the most important cases without resorting to it.[6]Bunwaree lal V. Hetnarain Singh, 7 MIA 148 (167). In all civilized systems of jurisprudence there is a presumption against perjury. The correct rule is to judge the oral evidence with reference to the conduct of the parties, and the presumptions and probabilities legitimately arising in the case.[7]Mathoora Pande v. Ram Ruchya Tewaree, 11 WR 482 Another test is to see whether the evidence is consistent with the common experience of mankind, with the usual course of nature and of human conduct, and with well-known principles of human action.

FALUS IN UNO FALUS OMNIBUS-: The maxim means false in one particular, false in all. This principle is a somewhat dangerous maxim. There is always a fringe of embroidery to a story, however true in the main and so where the falsehood in merely an embroidery, that would not be enough to discredit the whole of the witness’s evidence; where , on the other hand the falsehood relates to a major or material point that is enough to discredit the witness.

APPRECIATION-: oral evidence should be approached with caution. The court must shift the evidence, separate the grain from the chaff and accept what it finds to be true and reject the rest. The credibility of the witness should be decided on the following important points:

(a) Whether the witness have the means of gaining correct information,

(b) Whether they have any interest in concealing the truth,

(c) Whether they agree in their testimony.

Though a chance witness is not necessarily being a false witness, it proverbially rash to rely upon such evidence.[8] Ismail Ahmed v. Momin Bibi, 1941 pc 11 The real tests for accepting or rejecting evidence are; how consistent is the story in itself, how does it stands of cross-examination and how far does it fit it with the rest of the evidence and circumstances of the case.[9]  Jamadar singh v. E., 21 (854)  Non-consideration of oral evidence by the lower appellate court, it is a non observance of the mandatory provision of Order 41, Rule 31 which brings in the sessions infirmity in the judgment. The judgment in such a cases stands vitiated and is not binding on the high court in the second appeal.[10]  Dwarka Pd. Marwan v. Sudharshan Pd. Chandraj, AIR 1984 Pat 274 When a girl states that a particular person used to conduct himself as her father, she says so from his personal knowledge and it is not hearsay[11] Hazara Singh v. Attar Singh, AIR 1976 Punj 24.

ELECTRONIC RECORDS-:

The section was amended by the Information Technology Act, 2000 so as to include within the meaning of the term “document”, electronic records also. Hence, every other fact, except contents of an electronic record or of any document, can be proved by oral evidence.

S.60 deals with Oral evidence must be direct – Oral evidence must, in all cases, whatever, be direct; that is to say­—

If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he seen it;

If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;

If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;

If it refers to an opinion or to the grounds in which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds -

Provided that the opinion of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatise if the author is dead or cannot be found or has become incapable of giving evidence or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable.

Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.

PRINCIPLE-: this section enacts the general English rule that hearsay is no evidence. It embodies the second important rule about oral evidence, viz., that it must in all cases be direct and not hearsay. The section sets out the scope of the expression ‘direct evidence’. It is true that hearsay evidence is excluded by this section. However, this is subject to well- recognized exceptions (e.g., sections 17 to 39).

Stephen – “the word ‘hearsay’ is used in various senses. Sometimes it means whatever a person is heard to say; sometimes it means whatever a person declares on information given by someone else.”

HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND ITS EXCLUSION-: the term hearsay is ambiguous and misleading as it is used in more than one scene. Stephen says “sometimes it means whatever a person is heard to say; sometimes it means whatever a person declared on information given by someone else; sometimes it is treated as nearly synonymous with irrelevant” , (Stephen’s evidence, introduction, p.4). In its more generally accepted since the term hearsay is used to indicate that evidence which does not derive its value from the credit given to the witness himself, but which rests also on the veracity and competence of some other person. It is thus used in contradiction to ‘direct evidence’. It is derivative evidence.

REASONS FOR EXCLUSION OF HEARSAY-:

(a) The irresponsibility of the original declarent;

(b) The deprecation of truth in the process of repetition; and

(c) The opportunities for fraud its admission would open; to which are sometimes added these grounds, viz.,

(d) The tendency of such evidence to protract legal inquires, and

(e) To encourage the substitution of weaker for stronger proof.

Hearsay evidence is the statement of a witness not based on his personal knowledge but on what he heard from others.[12]Sakatar Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2004 S.C 2570, such evidence is not admissible.If the evidence is that of a fact the happening of which could be heard, for example, the noise of an explosion, the evidence must be that of a person who personally heard the happening of the fact.[13] S.P.Subramanya v.KSRT Corpn., AIr 1997 S.C 2076 the evidence of a reporter that after filing the F.I.R at the instance of his companion, who told by the people there, by naming the accused, that he assaulted the deceased and escaped, was held to be irrelevant, being not an eye witness account.[14] State of U.P v. Satish Chandra, 1985 supp, S.C.C 576 thus all the cases the evidence has to be that of a person who himself witnessed the happening of the fact of which he gives evidence in whatever way the fact was capable of being witnessed. Such a witness is called an eye-witness or a witness of fact and the principle is known as that of direct oral evidence or of the exclusion of hearsay evidence. A post mortem report was produced by the record clerk of the hospital. The doctor who conducted the post mortem was not produced. The court ruled that in such circumstances the report was not provable. Only the original report stand not a copy of it is admissible.[15] Vijender v. State of Delhi, (1997)6 s.c.c 171 (S.C).

R v. Gibson[16](1887) 18 Q.B,D. 537

The accused person was prosecuted for causing hurt by throwing a stone at prosecutor. So soon he was hit by the stone a woman who saw a man throwing the stone drew his attention towards a house and said: “the person who threw the stone went in there.” Very soon thereafter he was caught and arrested in that house.

But the above statement was held to be not relevant. The prosecutor himself had not seen any person throwing a stone at him and thereafter entering a particular house and, therefore, the statement was not hearsay.[17]

EXCEPTIONS TO HEARSAY

* Res Gestae [s.6] (1887) 18 Q.B,D. 537

* Admissions and Confessions

* Statement relevant under section.32

* Statements in Public Documents.

* Evidence in Former Proceedings

* Statements of Experts in Treatises[s.60,proviso]

Difference between Direct Evidence and Hearsay Evidence

Direct Evidence

Hearsay Evidence

1. Direct evidence is that which the witness is giving on the basis of his own perception

1.  Hearsay evidence is that which has been derived by other person.

2. Direct evidence is best oral evidence of the fact to be proved.

2. Hearsay evidence is secondary one and it is admitted in exceptional cases.

3. The liability of veracity of direct evidence is on person who is giving its evidence.

3. In case of hearsay evidence the person giving evidence does not take the responsibility of its veracity.

4. The person giving direct evidence is available for cross examination for testing its veracity.

4. The person giving hearsay evidence is not author of original evidence. It is derived from original author.

5. The source of direct evidence is the person who is present in court and giving evidence.

5. In case of hearsay evidence the person giving hearsay evidence is not original source of evidence given by him.

CHAPTER-II

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

MEANING–: the expression “documentary evidence” as it is defined in section 3, means:

[18] Subs by act of 21 of 2000[All documents including records produced for the inspection of the Court] such documents are called documentary evidence.

The expression “document” is defined in section 3 as follows:

“Document”- means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letter, figures or makes, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.

S.3 defines the term ‘evidence’ as meaning and including oral and documentary evidence. All evidence comes to the tribunal either as the statement of a witness or as the statement of a document, i.e., oral or documentary evidence. The present chapter deals with the documentary evidence, i.e., the mode of proof of contents of documents old documents either by primary or secondary evidence, the types of documents, viz., public and private documents of the presumptions as to the documents. Further we are going to deal with the 3 main aspects –:

a) How documents are to be proved the manner of,

b) What are the presumptions about the various kinds of documents, and

c) When is oral evidence excluded by documentary evidence.

It has been said that the word “document” as used in the law of evidence “should not be construed restrictively. Etymologically the word means something which shows or teaches and is evidential or informative in its character. Where the statement of parties containing the terms of a compromise were recorded by a court and duly signed, it was to be held to be a document.[19] Raksha Rai v. Ram Lal A.I.R 1987 P.& H. 60with regard to recorded tape, it was said that there is “no reason in principle why the recording in recording in some permanent or semi-permanent manner of human voice(or other sounds) which are relevant to the issue to the determined, provided that it furnishes information, cannot be a document”.[20] R v. Daye, 1908 (K.B)333 In reception to the reception into evidence of models, maps, diagrams and photos, it is to observed in WIGMORE[21] WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, Para 790 (3rd ed. 1940, vol.3.))  “that for evidentiary purposes they are nothing except so far as they have a human being’s credit to support them. Then they become media of communication as a superior substitute for words.”

R.M.Malkani v. State of Maharashtra[22]AIR 1973 S.C 157

The accused, which an appealed to the Supreme Court against his conviction, was the coroner of Bombay. A doctor, who was running a nursing home, operated upon a patient who afterwards died. It, being a post-operation death, becomes the subject of post-mortem and inquest. The coroner persuaded the doctor to pay him a sum of money if he wanted the report to be favorable to him. The payment was arranged to be made through another doctor and the final meeting for this purpose was to be settled by telephone call from the house of another the doctor. The police commissioner was called with the tape-recording mechanism. This was connected to the doctor’s telephone and thus the most incriminating conversation was recorded in the presence of the police officer.

The Bombay High Court held that the testimony of the two doctors required corroboration and that the tape amply corroborated it. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court.

N.Sri Rama Reddy v. V.V. Giri[23] (1970) 2 S.C.C. 340 & Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab[24] AIR 1964 S.C. 72

The court accepted conversation of dialogue recorded on tape-recording machine as admissible evidence.

S.61 – Proof of contents of documents–: The contents of document may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence. Law of best evidence requires the best evidence must be given in proof of the facts in issue or the other relevant facts. Primary evidence is the best evidence. The best evidence rule is to produce the original and secondary evidence is not admissible unless the original is proved to be lost, etc, as required under section 65. Contents may be proved, i.e., in other words, there are no degrees of secondary evidence.

In India the rule is the same as in England. The section means that there no other method allowed by law for providing the contents of a document except by the primary or the secondary evidence.[25] Ramprasad v. Raghunandad Prasad, (1885) 7 ALL 138 (143). Where admissions were made in a written statement by the plaintiff’s predecessors-in-interest which was filed in several judicial proceedings regarding the rights in the suit property, a certified copy of the written statement was held to be admissible in proof of the settled rights to the property.[26] Raman Pillai v. Kumaran Parameswaram A.I.R. 2002 Ker. 133 Where the document carried adhesive stamps which belonged to a period prior to six months from the date of purchase, the court said that such document could not be attached in evidence. it would have been admissible if it was not creative of any rights in favour of any party and merely recorded something.[27] Tex India v. Punjab and Sind Bank, AIR 2003 Bom 444.An unregistered family settlement deed was held to admissible strictly for collateral purposes only.[28]Lakshamaiah v. Saropamma, AIR 2004 NOC 59 (Kant.)

The subject of documentary evidence can be divided into three parts:

1. How the contents of a document are to be proved? {61-66}

2. How the document is to be proved to be genuine? {67-90}

3. How far and in what cases the oral evidence is executed by documentary evidence? {91-109}

CHAPTER-III

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EVIDENCE {62-66}

PRIMARY EVIDENCE

Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the Court.

Explanation 1. – Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document.

Where a document is executed in counterparts, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it.

Explanation 2. – Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not primary evidence of the contents of the original.

The expression “primary evidence” of a document is defined in section 62. The following four are included in the expression “primary evidence”:

1. The original document itself produced for the inspection of the court.[29] C.P.Agarwal v. P.O., Labour court, (1996) 11 S.C.C. 393

2. Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document.[30] Shiv Kant Pandey v. Ishwari Singh, AIR 1997 Raj 155

3. Where a document is executed in counterparts, each counterpart in primary evidence against the party signing it.

4. Where a number of documents are all made by one uniform process, for example, by printing, lithography or photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the document.[31]Kamla Rajamanikham v. Sushila Thakur das , AIR 1983 All. 90

PRINCIPLE–: this section defines primary evidence as the document itself produced for the inspection of the court. Primary evidence is evidence which the law requires to be given first. The general rule requiring primary evidence to be given of the litigated documents is based on the best evidence rule. An original document is the first permanent record of a transaction. It is first-hand evidence and presumptively the most reliable. Besides, documents are often interlined or altered. Therefore it is desirable to have the original to see if alterations are part of the document or are made subsequently.

There is probably no rule of evidence that is better known than this that secondary evidence of the contents of written document is, in general, not relevant. “The contents of every written paper are, according to the ordinary well-established rules of evidence, to be proved by the paper itself, and by that alone, if the paper be in existence.[32] Murarka Propertis v. Beharilal Murarka, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 109 Where the writer of a letter was not examined as a witness and no opportunity was given to the opposite party to cross-examine him, the letter was held by the Supreme Court to be not reliable evidence.[33]Vinod Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., AIR 1984 S.C. 911The truth of the contents of a document can, however, is also proved by any other evidence and not necessarily by the evidence of author of the document.[34]Ramji Dayawala v. Invest Import, AIR 1981 S.C. 2085

One specimen of a newspaper of a newspaper is not a copy of another specimen of the same newspaper of the same date. They are all originals, each being primary evidence of the contents rest under Explanation 2 to section 62.[35] Prithvi Chaand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 702

SECONDARY EVIDENCE

63. Secondary evidence means and includes…….

1. Certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;

2. Copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies;

3. Copies made from or compared with the original;

4. Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;

5. Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it.

The most remarkable among the types of secondary evidence by the section is the oral or parol evidence of the contents of a document. Thus, it follows the oral evidence of the contents of a document can be given. There are two conditions of a relevancy of such evidence. Firstly, party offering oral evidence must be entitled to give secondary evidence of such document. The circumstances in which secondary evidence can be given are listed in section 65 should exist so as to enable, the party to give secondary evidence of a document in question. The second condition is that the oral account of the contents of a document must be that of a person who has himself seen it. Once these conditions are satisfied, the party can give oral evidence of the contents of the document even if he has attested copy in his possession.

“The rule is, that if you cannot produce the original, you may give parol evidence of its contents if indeed the party giving such parol evidence appears to have better secondary evidence in his power, which he does not produce, that is a fact to go to the jury, from which they might sometime presume that the evidence kept back would be adverse to the party without holding it. But the law makes no distinction between one class of the secondary evidence and another.”[36]LORD ABINGER, C.B. in Doerd Gilbert v. Ross, (1840) 19 L.J. Ex.210

The evidence embodied in a letter was held to be not reliable when the author of the letter was not produced and the opposite party had no opportunity of cross-examining him.[37]Orential Fire & General Ins, co. Ltd v. Chandrawati, AIR. 1989 P. & H. 300 Even where a person against whom an item of news appears in the press has not denied it, it would not constitute evidence against him. Facts contained in the report would have to be proved.[38]S.A. Khan v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1993 S.C. 1348

Call records of cellular phones are stored in huge servers, which cannot be easily moved and produced in courts. Hence, secondary evidence of such records should be allowable under sections 63 and 65. Whatever or not the requirements of section 65b (4) are satisfied. The nature of evidence to show that there has been no improper use of a computer and that it was functioning properly would vary from case to case. It would be very rarely necessary to call an expert. In normal cases it would be possible to discharge the burden of proving proper functioning by calling a witness who is familiar with the operation of the type of computer in question.[39]State (NCT) of delhi v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 S.C.C. 600.

Difference between Primary Evidence and Secondary Evidence

Primary Evidence

Secondary Evidence

1. Primary evidence is original document. Which is presented to the court for its inspection.

1. Secondary evidence is the document which is not original document but those documents which are mentioned in section 68.

2. Primary evidence is the best evidence in all circumstances.

2. Secondary evidence is not best evidence but is evidence of secondary nature and is admitted in exceptional circumstances mentioned in section 63.

3. Giving primary evidence is general rule.

3. Giving secondary evidence is exception to the general rule.

4. No notice is required before giving primary evidence

4. Notice is required to be given before giving secondary evidence.

5. The value of primary evidence is highest.

5. The value of secondary evidence is not as that of primary evidence.

PROOF OF DOCUMENTS BY PRIMARY EVIDENCE

S.64 of the evidence act deals with this and it reads as -: Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned.

This section embodies one of the underlying principles which is that a document must be proved by its primary evidence. The meaning of the expression “primary evidence” has been explained in sec.62. But lest technical considerations should defeat substantial justice, the following section, namely, sec 65, embodies situations which would sanctify secondary evidence.

It has been held in several decisions that objections, if any, as to the mode of proving a document should be at trial stage itself. If no objections taken at the stage, subsequently at the stage of appeal, it would be too late and would not be allowed.[40] State of Haryana v. Chandji, AIR 1982 P& H 282 Where, however, a copy of the insurance policy and not the original document was produced before the tribunal, the other party making no objection then, an objection before the appellate court was allowed so as to exclude the evidence.[41] Vinod Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., AIR. 1984. S.C. 911

CASES IN WHICH SECONDARY EVIDENCE RELATING

TO DOCUMENTS MAY BE GIVEN

S. 65 deal with these kinds of cases and reads as-: 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.

Where the document is inadmissible in evidence, the acquiescence of the other party at the time of marking of the document could be no bar to raising an objection in the appellant forum for the first time. But, if the objection relates to the mode of proof it cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time at the appellate stage.[42] Andhra Pradesh Stata Civil Corporation Ltd. V. Simhadripuram Cooperative Society, AIR. 2005 NOC 15 (A.P)Circumstances for admission of secondary evidence must be made out. Without taking steps for production of original or laying foundation for secondary evidence, production of certified copies by itself was not allowable in evidence.[43] Hadiani Debi v. Kailash Panda, (2004) 2 S.C.C. 544 Ori

Evidence related to electronic record. A prayer was made for pr producing it by means of video-conferencing. The court said that there was no bar on examination of a witness through video-conferencing.[44]Amitabh Bagchi v. Ena Bagchi, AIR. 2005 cal. 11.

Section 67 deals with the Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced – If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person’s handwriting must be proved to be in his hand writing.

The party, who produces a document which he alleges is executed, signed or written by a certain person, has to prove that fact. This section merely requires proof of signature and handwriting of the person alleged to have signed or written the document produced.[45] Abdool Ali v. Abdoor Rushman, (1874) 21 WR 429

As to the way in which the handwriting of a person can be proved has been already been seen in connection with opinion as to handwriting. Such a proof is not necessary where the document has been produced by the party against whom its production was demanded, because by producing it he virtually admits the execution by him.[46]Pearce v. Hooper, (1810) 3 Taunt 60 Except in the cases of a secure digital signature, if the digital signature of any subscribe is alleged to have been fixed to an electronic record the fact that such digital signature is the digital signature of the subscriber must be proved.[47] Added by the Information Technology Act, 2000

Proof of execution of document required y law to be attested. Section 68 deals with these kind of cases and lay down that , if a document required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until on attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act,1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specially denied.

The document has to be proved by examining the attesting witnesses. The validity of the document could not be denied by the person who had no right succeed or had any other right to property. The denial in this case was by the son of the executants through his second wife. He had no right of succession and therefore, was not allowed to register his denial to the validity of the document.[48]R.Jayapaul v. Pappayee Ammal, AIR 2004 Mad.6Thus, an examination of attesting witness is necessary only when the execution of the document has been specifically denied. If not so denied, the evidence furnished by the registration certificate under S.63 of the registration act coupled with the presumption under illustration (e) to S.114 of the Evidence act would be more than sufficient.[49] Mathu v. Cherchi, (1990) 1 Ker L.T. 416

Whereas in the cases of proof of will and Where all that the executor of a pronote said that he was very old, infirm and could not understand the nature of the document, but offered no evidence in support of his allegation, the Allahabad High Court held that this did not amount to a specific denial of execution. There was no necessarily of calling an attesting witness.[50]Chuttan Lal v. Shanti Prakash AIR 1981 All. 50 Where, in the case of a “will” the only attesting witness surviving and summoned was able to prove nothing, the will was held to be not proved.[51] Rameshwari Devi v. Shyam Lal AIR 1980 All 292 Similarly, where the legal heir of the executants of a denied execution and the opposite party did not produce the attesting witness for the fear that he may not favour the, the requirements of the section were held to be not satisfied.[52] Ram Ratan Mishra v. Bittan Kaur, AIR 1980 All. 395 The legal requirement is complied with when one attesting witness is produced. Neither it is necessary to produce the other witness even if available, nor is there any obligation to explain why the other witness has not been produced.[53] Mathepw Jacob v. Salestine Jacob, AIR 1998 Del, 390 What is to be done if no attesting witness is available? Section 69 provides the answer……..

S.69 deals with the Proof where no attesting witness found any lays down that “If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the hand writing of that person.”

If no attesting witness is available or if the document is executed in the United Kingdom, two things should be proved-:

a) It should be proved that the signature of the person executing the document is in his handwriting, and

b) That the signature of at least one attesting witness is in his handwriting.

Where all the attesting witnesses of a will were dead the court allowed the will to be proved in the manner of any other document.[54]] Balwant v. Minabai, AIR 1991 M.P .11, Jayanti Gogal v. Pranati Duara, AIR, 2004 Gau.23, attesting witnesses of the will were not available, no evidence was adduced to prove the signature of any of the attesting witnesses. Requirements of S. 69 not complied with. Finding that the will was not proved was held to be proper. The court also said that signature and handwriting of attesting witnesses can be proved in the same manner which is applicable to other persons.Where the party  to an attested document has admitted that he executed the document that is sufficient proof of the execution even if the document is required by law to be attested. This is laid down in section 70.

Section 70 deal with the admission of execution by party to attested document and say that The admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a document required by law to be attested.

If the attesting witness denies or does not remember the execution of the document, its execution should be proved by other evidence. Where the attestator was an illiterate person and he attested by putting his  thumb impression and though it was a conveyance by his predecessor-in-interest, he was not bound by the document unless it could be shown that the document was read out to him and he understood it.[55] Badri Narayanan v. Rajabajyathammal, (1996) 7 S.C.C. 101The Calcutta and the Allahabad high court have held that the word ‘admission’ relates only to the admission of a party in the course of the trial of a suit, and not to the attestation of a document by the admission of the party executing it. In other words, it has no relation to any admission of execution made before an attesting witness without reference to any suit or proceeding.[56]Abdul Karim v. Salimun, (1899) 27 cal. 190; Raj Man Gal Misir v. Mathura Dubain, (1915) 38 All 1.

Now the question here is that what if attesting witness denies the execution. Section 71 deals with the same and says that if the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document its execution may be proved by other evidence.

If a document not requires by the law to be attested has in fact been attested, its execution may be proved as if it were not an attested document. In a case before Madras High Court,[57]Doraiswami v. Rathnammal, AIR 1978 Mad 78 the question related to the validity of a will alleged to have been made and signed by a lady before her death. Of the attesting witnesses only one was alive and he denied having attested any such will. There were two other witnesses only one was alive and he denied having attested any such will. There were two witnesses only. One of them was the registrar who did remember the woman executrix. The other witness was able to identify the signature of her head father who was one of the attesting witnesses. In these circumstances the court held that the execution the execution of the will could not be said to have been duly proved. Section 63 of the succession act, 1925 requires a will to be attested by the two or more witnesses. A combined reading of sec.68 of the Evidence Act and S.63 of the succession Act would, therefore, suggested that at least one attesting witness should be examined and he should speak not only of the testator’s signature but also that the other the other witnesses signed the will in his presence. Where this is not done, the will cannot be said to have been proved.[58]Paramu Radha Krishnan v. Bharathan, AIR 1990 Ker. 146

A ‘will’ which have not been proved in accordance with the requirements of S.68 cannot be used even for some relationship or for the existence or absence of some other rights in the property.[59]Illyas v. Badshah, AIR 1990 M.P. 334. Compliance with the requirements of the section is not necessary where the execution and attestation are not disputed.

Where the attesting witness of a will was not produced for the fear that he might go against the claimant’s interest, the Allahabad High Court held that it could not be said that the witness had denied knowledge so as to attract provisions of section 71.[60]Ram Rattan v. Bittan Kaur, AIR 1980 All. 395.The section is attracted when the attesting witness, who is available, denies attestation. Other evidence then becomes permissible. The scribe testified as to the scribing of the ‘will’ by him and attestation by two witnesses. This statement was held to be coming under S.71. A subsequent “will” executed by the testator made specific mention of the execution of “will” in question. The execution of the will by the other evidence was taken to be proved.[61]Chandan v. Longa Bi, AIR 1998 M.P.1

In the case of a will the burden lies upon its propounder to prove its genuineness, the deceased testator being no longer available to speak to its genuineness. Accordingly when the evidence produced by him was contradicting his claim and there was also inconsistency in the opinion of the handwriting expert, the will was held to be not proved.[62] A.Chandrabati v. Laxmi Dei, AIR 1991 Orrisa 289

Section 72 deals with the proof of the document not required by law to be attested. Where no attestation is necessary the section declares in simple terms that where a document, though not required by law to be attested, is nevertheless attested, it may be proved as if it was not attested.[63] Khurijam O.T.Devi v. A.A.Singh AIR 1982 Gau. 100

COMPARISON OF SIGNATURE, WRITING OR

SEAL WITH OTHERS ADMITTED OR PROVED

S.73 deals with the comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved and says that -:In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which s to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.

This section applies also with any necessary modifications, to finger-impressions.

When the court has to satisfy itself whether the signature or whether the signature or seal on a document is genuinely that of a person whose signature or seal it purports to be, the court may compare the same with another signature or seal which is admitted or proved to be that of the person concerned. This principle is laid down in S.73. In so doing the court does not act as an expert.[64]Hamida v. Humer AIR. 1992 All 346 Modes of proving handwriting have already been considered before. Comparison by the court of the handwriting with a proved or admitted handwriting is one of those methods which are recognized by this section. It is necessary that the writing to be used as a standard should be properly proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be the handwriting of the person concerned.[65]Doed Devine v. Wilson, (1855) 10 Moc P.C 502

An application for appointment of an expert for verification of signature should be rejected where the applicant is disputing his signature.[66]  Bhagirati Sahu v. Akapati Bhaskar Patra, AIR 2001 Ori, 185An application for this purpose can be made at any stage of the trial.[67]Guru Govindu v. Devarapu Venkataramana, (2006) 4 C.C.C. 214 (AP), the lower court rejected the application because of belated stage. Expert opinion can help the court to reach a proper conclusion.

This section enables the court to require the person concerned to write any words or figures to enable the court to compare them with words or figures in question.[68] Sukhvinder Singh v. state of Punjab, (1994) 5 S.C.C. 152, direction for specimen signature can be given by the court conducting the trial or holding the inquiry. A specimen obtained at the court conducting the trial or holding the inquiry. A specimen obtained at the direction of an executive magistrate concerned with the matter constituted no evidence.The principle of the section also applies to finger impressions.[69]Doed Mudd v. Suckermore, (1837) 7 L.J. Q.B. 33 Ordinarily the court should in such cases take the help of an expert.[70]R. v. Harden, (1963) 1 Q.B. 8 In a grant of loan against pledge of ornaments, the question was whether the slip acknowledgement receipt of articles was under the signature of the pledge. The court itself decided the question by comparing the handwriting with an admitted handwriting. It was held on appeal that expert opinion  should have been obtained as a matter of prudence or cogent reasons given why that was not considered necessary.[71] Ashok Kumar Uttamchand Shah v. Patel Md Asmal Chanchal, AIR 1999 Guj. 108

Rejection by the court of the evidence of a handwriting expert on the ground that the expert had no qualifications was held to be not proper. Once becomes an expert in this field by training, experience and constant observation and not by any formal qualification. It is not a developed science and there are no regular courses of study. The expert here was retired personnel from forensic science laboratory. The circumstantial evidence supported the expert opinion was also based upon cogent reasons.[72]Nallabathu Purnaiah v. Garre Mallikarjuna, AIR. 2003 A.P. 201

CHAPTER- IV

PUBLIC & PRIVATE DOCUMENTS

S.74 deals with the public documents which reads as -:

The following documents are Public documents-

1. Documents forming the acts or records of the acts

a) Of the sovereign authority,

b) Of Official bodies and Tribunals, and

c) Of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country.

2. Public records kept in any State of private documents.

Two kinds of public documents:

1. Documents forming the acts or records of the act of the sovereign authority, namely, the parliament and the legislative assemblies, or of the official bodies and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any pert of India or of the commonwealth, or of a foreign country, are public documents.[73] Octavious Steel Co. v. Endoram Tea Co., AIR 1980 Cal. 83

2. Private documents which are registered in the public offices also become public documents.

A private document, such as, for example, an application for a licence, which is filed in government office and is produced there from does not become a public document so as to dispense with the necessity of proof by primary evidence.[74] Kunti Devi v. Radhey Shyam, AIR. 1978 All 185 A post-mortem report is not public document so as to amount to proof of identity of the deed without producing the doctor in evidence.[75] State vv. Bhola pal, (1995) cri.L.J. 3717

A private waqf deed which is recorded in the office of the sub-registrar is a public document.[76] Fazal Sheikh v. Abdur Rahman Mia, AIR 1991 Gau 177 This should be compared with a decision of the Gauhati high court where it was held that a private sale deed registered under the Indian Registration Act is not a public document and, therefore, a certified copy is not admissible in evidence under S. 77 of the evidence act. Explaining the meaning of public records the court said-:

“Public records are those records which a government unit is required by law to keep or which it is necessary to keep in discharge of duties imposed by law.”[77]BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY The court overruled its own earlier decision[78] Md. Saimuddin v. Abezuddin AIR 1979 Gau 14 and followed the Privy Council decision in Gopal Das v. Thakurji,[79]AIR 1943 P.C. 83 where their Lordships held that the d original receipt executed by any individual and registered under the Indian Registration Act is not “a public record of public document”, within the meaning of S.74(2) As the original gas to be returned to the party under S.61(2) Of the Registration Act.

Entries made by a police officer in the site inspection map and site memo have been held to be public document.[80] Rajasthan State Transport Corporation v. Nand Kishore, AIR 2001 Raj 334  A record of consideration of employees for promotion purposes was submitted before the Supreme Court by a public sector undertaking. The record was 13-19 years old. It was held that the record was sufficiently old to rule out the objection that it was a manufactured one and not the original.[81]  C.P. Agarwal v. P.O., Labour Court, (1996) 11 S.C.C. 97 An order sanctioning prosecution of an officer has been held to be a public document.[82]State v. K. Narasimhachary. (2005) 8 S.C.C. 364  Section 75 of the Act deals with the Private Documents and lay down that all other documents are private

Difference between Public Document and Private Document

Public Document

Private Document

1. Public document is prepared by public servants in discharge of his public duties.

1. Private document are those documents which are prepared by a person for his private interest under his private right.

2. Public documents are available for inspection to the public in public office during appointed time after payment of fixed fee.

2. Public documents are kept in custody of the person to whom it belongs and is not available for general inspection to the public.

3. The secondary copy of public document is to be admitted in judicial proceedings.

3. Before proving one of conditions laid down under section 65 the secondary evidence of original document is not to be admitted in judicial proceedings.

4. As general rule the public document is proved by secondary evidence.

4. As general rule the private document is to be proved by original i.e. by primary evidence.

5. The court is bound to presume the genuineness of public document from their duly certified secondary copy.

5. No presumption is made about genuineness of original document from secondary evidence of private document except in some exceptional circumstances.

CHAPTER-V

PROOF OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

The rule relating to proof of public documents is that they can be proved by producing certified copies. It means that public documents are always provable by secondary evidence. This first provision which deals with this is section 76 which says about the Certified copies of public documents-: Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officers with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal, and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.

Explanation – Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.

Where in a process for acquisition of land, it became necessary to determine the value of land by the comparable sales method, evidence of registered sales was allowed by producing certificate copies. Examination of the parties to the agreements was not considered to be necessary.[83]State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR 2001 S.C. 2532

The provision which deals with the Proof of documents by production of certified copies is section 77 of the act which reads as-: Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.

A will was executed in the state of Goa with the intervention of Notary Public. The court said that it became a Public document. It could be proved by production of a certified copy. Such will carried with it a ring or halo of its authenticity and reliability and it presumed t be true until disapproved.[84]Carlos v. Maria Palicolade, AIR 2005 NOC 513 (Bom).

Next provision deals with the Proof of the other official documents it is provided under S.78. This reads as:-

The following public documents may be proved as follows –

(1). Acts, orders or notifications of the General Government in any of its departments, or of the Crown Representative or of any State Government or any department of any State Government.

By the records of the departments, certified by the heads of those departments respectively, or

By any document purporting to be printed by order of any such Government or as the case may be, of the Crown Representative;

(2) The proceedings of the Legislatures -

by the journals of those bodies respectively, or by published Acts or abstracts, or by copies purporting The Orient Tavern be printed by order of the Government concerned;

(3) Proclamations, orders or regulations issued by Her Majesty or by the Privy Council, or by any department of Her Majesty’s Government,

By copies or extracts contained in the London Gazette, or purporting to be printed by the Queen’s Printer;

(4) The Acts of the Executive or the proceedings of the Legislature of a foreign country -

By journals published by their authority, or commonly received in that country as such, or by a copy certified under the seal of the country or sovereign, or by a recognition thereof in some Central Act;

(5) The proceedings of a municipal body in a State, -

By a copy of such proceedings certified by the legal keeper thereof of by a printed book purporting to be published by the authority of such body,

(6) Public documents of any other class in a foreign country, -

by the original, or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof with a certificate under the seal of a notary public, or of an Indian consul or diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original and upon proof of the character of the document according to the law of the foreign country.

The Allahabad High Court had held that a mere cyclostyled covering letter accompanied by a similar copy of the rules is not relevant. It was covering letter accompanied by a similar copy of the rules in not relevant. It was necessary that the letter should have been certified by the head of the department as required by section 78.[85]Union of India v. Nirmal Singh, AIR 1987 All. 83 A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in S. 78 by which an allegation of a fact can be proved.[86] Laxmi Raj Sheety v. State of T.N., AIR 1988 S.C. 1274.

[2] Inserted by the Information Technology Act,2000

[3] Queen-empress v. Abdullah, (1885) 7 all.385(F.B) and chandrasekhera v. R,(1937) A.C 220 (P.C)

[4] Anil Kumar v. State of U.P, AIR 2004 S.C 4662

[5] Anil Sharma v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2004 S.C 2294

[6] Bunwaree lal V. Hetnarain Singh, 7 MIA 148 (167).

[7] Mathoora Pande v. Ram Ruchya Tewaree, 11 WR 482

[8] Ismail Ahmed v. Momin Bibi, 1941 pc 11

[9] Jamadar singh v. E., 21 (854)

[10] Dwarka Pd. Marwan v. Sudharshan Pd. Chandraj, AIR 1984 Pat 274

[11] Hazara Singh v. Attar Singh, AIR 1976 Punj 24.

[12] Sakatar Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2004 S.C 2570, such evidence is not admissible.

[13] S.P.Subramanya v.KSRT Corpn., AIr 1997 S.C 2076

[14] State of U.P v. Satish Chandra, 1985 supp, S.C.C 576

[15] Vijender v. State of Delhi, (1997)6 s.c.c 171 (S.C).

[16] (1887) 18 Q.B,D. 537

[18] Subs by act of 21 f 2000

[19] Raksha Rai v. Ram Lal A.I.R 1987 P.& H. 60

[20] R v. Daye, 1908 (K.B)333

[21] WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, Para 790 (3rd ed. 1940, vol.3.))

[22] AIR 1973 S.C 157

[23] (1970) 2 S.C.C. 340

[24] AIR 1964 S.C. 72

[25] Ramprasad v. Raghunandad Prasad, (1885) 7 ALL 138 (143).

[26] Raman Pillai v. Kumaran Parameswaram A.I.R. 2002 Ker. 133

[27] Tex India v. Punjab and Sind Bank, AIR 2003 Bom 444.

[28] Lakshamaiah v. Saropamma, AIR 2004 NOC 59 (Kant.)

[29] C.P.Agarwal v. P.O., Labour court, (1996) 11 S.C.C. 393

[30] Shiv Kant Pandey v. Ishwari Singh, AIR 1997 Raj 155

[31] Kamla Rajamanikham v. Sushila Thakur das , AIR 1983 All. 90

[32] Murarka Propertis v. Beharilal Murarka, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 109

[33] Vinod Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., AIR 1984 S.C. 911

[34] Ramji Dayawala v. Invest Import, AIR 1981 S.C. 2085

[35] Prithvi Chaand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 702

[36] LORD ABINGER, C.B. in Doerd Gilbert v. Ross, (1840) 19 L.J. Ex.210

[37] Orential Fire & General Ins, co. Ltd v. Chandrawati, AIR. 1989 P. & H. 300

[38] S.A. Khan v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1993 S.C. 1348

[39] State (NCT) of delhi v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 S.C.C. 600.

[40] State of Haryana v. Chandji, AIR 1982 P& H 282

[41] Vinod Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., AIR. 1984. S.C. 911

[42] Andhra Pradesh Stata Civil Corporation Ltd. V. Simhadripuram Cooperative Society, AIR. 2005 NOC 15 (A.P)

[43] Hadiani Debi v. Kailash Panda, (2004) 2 S.C.C. 544 Ori

[44] Amitabh Bagchi v. Ena Bagchi, AIR. 2005 cal. 11.

[45] Abdool Ali v. Abdoor Rushman, (1874) 21 WR 429

[46] Pearce v. Hooper, (1810) 3 Taunt 60

[47] Added by the Information Technology Act, 2000

[48] R.Jayapaul v. Pappayee Ammal, AIR 2004 Mad.6

[49] Mathu v. Cherchi, (1990) 1 Ker L.T. 416

[50] Chuttan Lal v. Shanti Prakash AIR 1981 All. 50

[51] Rameshwari Devi v. Shyam Lal AIR 1980 All 292

[52] Ram Ratan Mishra v. Bittan Kaur, AIR 1980 All. 395

[53] Mathepw Jacob v. Salestine Jacob, AIR 1998 Del, 390

[54] Balwant v. Minabai, AIR 1991 M.P .11, Jayanti Gogal v. Pranati Duara, AIR, 2004 Gau.23, attesting witnesses of the will were not available, no evidence was adduced to prove the signature of any of the attesting witnesses. Requirements of S. 69 not complied with. Finding that the will was not proved was held to be proper. The court also said that signature and handwriting of attesting witnesses can be proved in the same manner which is applicable to other persons.

[55] Badri Narayanan v. Rajabajyathammal, (1996) 7 S.C.C. 101

[56] Abdul Karim v. Salimun, (1899) 27 cal. 190; Raj Man Gal Misir v. Mathura Dubain, (1915) 38 All 1.

[57] Doraiswami v. Rathnammal, AIR 1978 Mad 78

[58] Paramu Radha Krishnan v. Bharathan, AIR 1990 Ker. 146

[59] Illyas v. Badshah, AIR 1990 M.P. 334. Compliance with the requirements of the section is not necessary where the execution and attestation are not disputed.

[60] Ram Rattan v. Bittan Kaur, AIR 1980 All. 395.

[61] Chandan v. Longa Bi, AIR 1998 M.P.1

[62] A.Chandrabati v. Laxmi Dei, AIR 1991 Orrisa 289

[63] Khurijam O.T.Devi v. A.A.Singh AIR 1982 Gau. 100

[64] Hamida v. Humer AIR. 1992 All 346

[65] Doed Devine v. Wilson, (1855) 10 Moc P.C 502

[66] Bhagirati Sahu v. Akapati Bhaskar Patra, AIR 2001 Ori, 185

[67] Guru Govindu v. Devarapu Venkataramana, (2006) 4 C.C.C. 214 (AP), the lower court rejected the application because of belated stage. Expert opinion can help the court to reach a proper conclusion.

[68] Sukhvinder Singh v. state of Punjab, (1994) 5 S.C.C. 152, direction for specimen signature can be given by the court conducting the trial or holding the inquiry. A specimen obtained at the court conducting the trial or holding the inquiry. A specimen obtained at the direction of an executive magistrate concerned with the matter constituted no evidence.

[69] Doed Mudd v. Suckermore, (1837) 7 L.J. Q.B. 33

[70] R. v. Harden, (1963) 1 Q.B. 8

[71] Ashok Kumar Uttamchand Shah v. Patel Md Asmal Chanchal, AIR 1999 Guj. 108

[72] Nallabathu Purnaiah v. Garre Mallikarjuna, AIR. 2003 A.P. 201

[73] Octavious Steel Co. v. Endoram Tea Co., AIR 1980 Cal. 83

[74] Kunti Devi v. Radhey Shyam, AIR. 1978 All 185

[75] State vv. Bhola pal, (1995) cri.L.J. 3717

[76] Fazal Sheikh v. Abdur Rahman Mia, AIR 1991 Gau 177

[77] BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY

[78] Md. Saimuddin v. Abezuddin AIR 1979 Gau 14

[79] AIR 1943 P.C. 83

[80] Rajasthan State Transport Corporation v. Nand Kishore, AIR 2001 Raj 334

[81] C.P. Agarwal v. P.O., Labour Court, (1996) 11 S.C.C. 97

[82] State v. K. Narasimhachary. (2005) 8 S.C.C. 364

[83] State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR 2001 S.C. 2532

[84] Carlos v. Maria Palicolade, AIR 2005 NOC 513 (Bom).

[85] Union of India v. Nirmal Singh, AIR 1987 All. 83

[86] Laxmi Raj Sheety v. State of T.N., AIR 1988 S.C. 1274.

Print Page