Evidence - admissible / not

I too want to know

Dear Amit

please provide full detail

@ Nadeem Qureshi sir, 

i just need to prove that - this case was filed in some court of law.

are the printouts sufficient / i have to get certified copies ??

"i just need to prove that - this case was filed in some court of law."

- put the judgment as evidence. if it is not there, and she left the case, then use some court paper.

whether you attended the as a party is also in question.

perhaps you want to raise the plea 'res judicata'

yes it is admissible in evidence.

Sir,

Is the authentication from the Court not necessary? As I understand the law the matter downloaded from the net needs authentication from the relevant authoruty before it can be accepted as evidence. Please enlighten.

Kishor Mehta

Is the authentication from the Court not necessary?

i also want to know the same thing.

the case status is printed from the official website of District Courts, Maharashtra.

does the printout still need any formal authentication ?

The Information Technology Act, 2000

2. Definitions.—(1)

(o)       "data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner, and is intended to be processed, is being processed or has been processed in a computer system or computer network, and may be in any form (including computer printouts magnetic or optical storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory of the computer;

 (t)       "electronic record" means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche;

THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

3. Interpretation clause.— In this Act the following words and expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary intention appears from the context:—

 “Evidence”.—“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) ⁶[all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court],

such documents are called documentary evidence. 

Authentication from the court is required.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

Mr kapoor pl see the question asked by Mr Amit. his question was wrt admissibility and I answered accordingly. Thanks

@ Author


“A speaking reply is heartbeat to satisfying any querriest query before a public discussion forums”. Absence of speaking and reasoning while replying brings confusion is what I feel and some may reject the contention which I override and say that I give 50:50 to both Shonee and Amitabha and end confusion in hand.

Now I place here in Court practice allowed gyan for public consideration;


All this querriest has to do is to file an RTI to concerned CPIO, District Court and ask them to Authentify annexed .nic.in printout and then place it as Evidence in concerned Court of Law as deem pleases it will be admitted without a doubt and or second question asked.
Reasoning:
S. 61 of the Evidence Act, 1872 provides that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. Further S. 65 of the Evidence Act provides for circumstances where under secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document. S. 65 (g) stipulates that in case of public documents as defined under S. 74 certified copies may be admitted as secondary evidence.

S. 74 (1) (iii) of the Evidence Act, 1872 stipulates the documents forming the acts or records of the acts of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India to be public documents.

The certified copies of public documents which are required to be submitted as secondary evidence can be obtained under the following provisions:

         
              (I)  S. 76 of the Evidence Act and

                       (II) Under provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

(I) S. 76 of the Evidence Act provides that 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 thereof, 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 officer 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.

Thus S. 76 in terms entitles a person, who has a right to inspect a public document, to a certified copy thereof. The section, however, does not specify the persons who would be entitled to inspect a public document. But judicial decisions have settled that question. It has been held that the right to inspect a public document is correlated to the interest which the person who seeks inspection has in the document and that interest should be a direct and tangible one in the document.

           
(II) On the other hand S. 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 defines right information as follows: 

S. 3 of the said RTI Act provides that every citizen shall have the right to information and may obtain the same by submitting an application under S. 6 of the RTI Act and payment of the requisite charges as stipulated in the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005.

Furthermore, S. 6 (2) of the RTI Act clarifies that an applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.

An analysis of the relevant provisions of both Acts establishes that the provisions of the RTI Act imposes requirements, for obtaining certified copies, which are less stringent  from those contained in the S. 76 of the Evidence Act.

Firstly, the certified copies under RTI Act can be obtained by any person whereas under the S. 76 of Evidence Act only a person who has a right to inspect i.e. a person having direct and tangible interest in the document can demand certified copies.

Secondly, under S. 76 of the Evidence Act, certified copies can be provided only by public officer having custody of the public document; whereas the RTI Act designates a specific Central Assistant Public Information Officer (CAPIO) who is entrusted with the responsibility of providing certified copies. The said CAPIO may or may not have custody of the said public document.

Thirdly, S. 76 of the Evidence Act provides for a specific procedure for making a certified copy such a signing on the bottom of each document, date, name and official title of the said officer, recital that it is a true copy of such document etc. On the other hand no specific procedure for certification is provided under the RTI Act; putting the date and office seal on each document copy along with a covering letter by the CAPIO may be deemed to constitute a certified copy of the public document.

Now let us come back to related provisions of the Evidence Act, S. 63 of the said Act provides as follows:

            63. Secondary evidence. 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.

It has been judicially settled that S. 63 is not exhaustive of all the kinds of secondary evidence. It has been held that the scope of S. 63 does not strictly fall only within any of those sub-sections enumerated therein. The term ‘includes’ leaves scope for such an interpretation. However, the court must be satisfied that the document sought to be introduced as secondary evidence is a faithful and accurate reproduction of the document whose copy it purports to be. (Re.: Smt Lachcho vs Dwari Mal AIR 1986 ALL 303)

Therefore, all certified copies of documents obtained under the provisions of the RTI Act are admissible as secondary evidence under S. 63 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as long as the court does not have any reason to doubt that the said certified copies are not faithful and accurate reproductions of the original documents in custody of Government Departments.

@ Tajobsindia,

La-jawab !

Bahut badhiya

My respects to TAJOBSINDIA,

A big thank you, very aptly, neatly and explicitely explained. 

Kishor Mehta