The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is mainly for the purpose of treating the document as secondary evidence depending upon the availability of the conditions mentioned therein. Also, Section 65-B of the Act is for the purpose of treating the electronic goods as evidence.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petition was filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act for accepting the photocopies of the bank drafts and money receipts by way of secondary evidence in the suit, however, the same was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to prove their genuineness as the plaintiff could not produce any certification from the Bank from where items were issued. Aggrieved by this, the present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in order to challenge the order passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the Petition was not filed under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act and since it cannot be filed in view of the fact that the electronic goods are not a subject matter, rather the document has been sought to be made acceptable by treating it as secondary evidence on account of availability of the conditions stipulated under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, but instead of giving consideration of the legal issue as per the provision of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, the order has been passed presuming the petition filed under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondents submitted that the documents are photocopies and in some places written in hand-written scripts, thus, numerous objections were made to the said Petition.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act is mainly for the purpose of treating the document as secondary evidence depending upon the availability of the conditions mentioned therein. It was furthermore observed that Section 65-B of the Act is for the purpose of treating the electronic goods as evidence. One of the provisions of Section 65-B, particularly under Section 65-B(4), is that while accepting the electronic device, a certification is to be given by its custodian.
It was noted that the documents for which the Petition was filed will come under the purview of Section 65 and that is the reason the petition has also been filed under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, but the learned Trial Court, on misconception, has rejected the said petition having beyond the scope of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the error is apparent on the face of the order as the Petition was rejected on the premise of applicability of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the Petition.
Case Title: Smt. Meena Kumari Sinha V. M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, New Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad
Case No.: C.M.P. No. 11 of 2023
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
Advocate for the Opp Party: Mr. Praveen Jaiswal, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
