True copies
rsraghukumar
(Querist) 08 March 2012
This query is : Resolved
sir i obtained some of the documents from police department under rti act. i filed in the court . they were marked under subject to objection. now judgement pronouced in that judgement it is clear that court though marked but not taken into account. in the judgement it is given that other side objected on the grounds that
1) true copies are not certified copies
2) the contents of those documents have to prove
But sir in recent past i saw in google search that according to evidence act true copies are nothing but certified copies. then why in judgement it is like that. in appeal will those documents will be taken into account. those are very imp documents to decide my case. The other side just said subject to objection but did not took any step to call concern officer to prove the record. moreover the other side the respondent did not entered the witness box. case decreed in my side only. but the thing is they are taken into account more weight will come to my case sir. plz suggest any citation that true copies are admissible inthe court.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 08 March 2012
it is well settled law that to prove contents of documents you have to examine the author of the document . the author has to testify as to the contents of the document .
in prsent case you did not examine the author of document . since you have relied upon those documents you have to prove the same .
what ahppneed to the orignal document?
"Under Section 64, documents are to be provided by primary evidence. Section 65, however permits secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of documents under the circumstances mentioned. The conditions laid down in the said Section must be fulfilled before secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary evidence of the contents of a document cannot be admitted without non-production of the original being first accounted for in such a manner as to bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the Section."
ajay sethi
(Expert) 08 March 2012
Photostat copy of a document is admissible in evidence, provided it is certified as a true copy. Section 63(3) of the Act, 1872, prescribes two alternatives viz. first that it may be a copy made from the original, and or second that it must be a copy compared with the original. To term as 'copy', it must have support of the witnesses qualified to show that it represents the contents of the original document, and then the copies compared with the original are admissible as secondary evidence. If either of the two requirements are satisfied, then the document would be a proper and valid secondary evidence. In other words, the emphasis in Section 63 illustration(c) is that the copy produced should be one which is compared with the original, and there is proof thereof that it contains that which the original contains. Whether xerox attested copy of a document comes within the meaning of Section 63(3) of the Act, 1872, is a matter required to be decided and resolved after adducing evidence,
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 08 March 2012
You should have examined the PIO in the instant case.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Dr V. Nageswara Rao
(Expert) 09 March 2012
1. If the documents obtained from the police are public documents like FIR etc, they can be used in Courts for proving the contents only if they are "certified copies" under S. 76 of the Evidence Act.
2. Please note that 'attested copies' is not a legal term.Public Documents cannot be proved by mere attestation and they have to be certified the way it is required under S. 76.
3. The Court was right in rejecting the documents.
dev kapoor
(Expert) 09 March 2012
Well,what we need to read between the lines in the qn is that those documents were to be considered for admission 'subject to objection',which is not a unilateral affair.The Court ought to hear the parties regarding the admissibility of these copies & come forward with a tangible finding as to why those copies are NOT admissible in evidence.A conspectus of the views of Mr.Sethi & Dr.Rao read with my view would certain help resolve the tangle in which the qnr is fixed.
A copy of a copy is not admissible in evidence.It is the copy that is made verbatim from the original document that can be admissible in evidence if proved under provisions referred to by Mr.Sethi & Dr.Rao.Let us not forget again that it must be ' a copy from the original document' not from a copy even if it is certified copy.
