Skip to main content

Leading Evidence during trial


1.      In case where the accused refused to plead guilty of the offence to which he is charged with, and claims to be tried, the Court calls upon the Prosecution / Complainant to lead all the evidences he has in support of his case.

2.      In criminal trial, the evidence are required to be led by the complainant and / or their witnesses by stepping into the witness box and illustrating / demonstrating to what they have witnessed. The Complainant is to examine before the Court, himself, and all other witnesses, who are “witness” to the crime, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused named in the complaint. This examination of himself and other prosecution witnesses is called “Examination – in – Chief.

3.      Giving evidence of facts is critical to any trial, be it civil trial or criminal trial. And therefore, it becomes imperative to understand the dynamics of evidence in legal sense.

To put it simply, leading / giving evidence means, proving the existence or the non existence of material facts, by the means of oral testimony and by the means of documentary evidence.

Evidence can be defined as any material which tends to persuade the court of the truth or probability of a fact asserted before it.

The word evidence in its relation to law includes all the legal means exclusive of mere arguments which tend to prove or disprove any fact, the truth of which is submitted for judicial investigation. Evidence is the means from which an inference may logically be drawn as to the existence of a fact.

May read further at:

4.      This takes us to section 101 of Evidence Act, 1872. Section 101 of Evidence Act incorporate the first principle of any litigation that the burden of proving facts alleged / asserted, would always lie upon the person who comes to the Court, claiming certain rights or attributing certain liabilities upon the opposite party; and until such burden is discharged, the opposite party is not obliged to lead evidence to prove his defense.

However, the law recognizes some exceptions to this first principle. They are –

a)      When, in respect of a fact, a rebuttal presumption of law exists in favour of the party, the burden to prove the said fact lies upon the opposite party to prove / disprove / rebut the presumption of law, and cause the burden to be shifted again upon the original party.

b)      Having regard to the natural course of events, ordinary and prudent human conduct and behaviour, indicated u/s 114 of Evidence Act, the burden of proof may shift upon the opposite party;

c)      Where a “Fact” to be proved is especially or substantially within the knowledge of the opposite party, and in the backdrop of the circumstances, the opposite party would be the only person who would be in the position to throw light on the said factual situation, the burden of proof of that fact may shift upon that person; (Section 106 Evidence Act)

d)     Where any of the party makes an affirmative existence of a “Fact”, the burden to prove the said fact lies upon that party, irrespective if he is the Plaintiff or defendant. Like for example, where any of the party alleges fraud, misrepresentation, mistake, coercion, admission, confession etc, the burden lies upon him to prove such fraud etc. (Section 103 Evidence Act).

e)      Where the accused takes plea that his case false within the exceptions, like of plea of alibi, plea of self defense, plea of intoxication, plea of minor, the burden falls upon him to prove such plea, and the law will presume the absence of such alibi, self defense etc. (Section 105 Evidence Act).

f)       The burden to prove certain facts may fall upon the other party where in a case the other party admits the case of the first party. In these type of case, if the opposite party fails to lead any evidence thereby explaining the circumstances under which the purported admission was made, the first party would be entitled for the judgment. (Section 102 Evidence Act)

The one other test which may be resorted to, to shoulder the burden of proof of a particular fact – which party is in the best position to enlighten the “fact in dispute”. This test has some resemblance to mandate of sections 103 and 106 stated hereinabove.

The other test to determine on whom the burden of proof lie, the test is – which party would be successful if no evidence at all, or no more evidence, as the case may be, were given. The application of principles of presumption of law will be significant in this respect.

Before a burden of proof of a particular fact is shouldered upon any party, the conceptual presumption of law in relation to the fact under dispute is very critical. Section 114 of Evidence Act would play a significant role in adjudging the abstract but genuine presumption of law. The usual course of human nature, conduct and behaviour; the natural course of events, would always regulate the burden of proof.

In this aforesaid discussion it is equally important to know as how the law defines a prudent and reasonable man, for, it would have a huge bearing on raising a presumption and placing a burden of proof.

Who is a Prudent Man: A prudent man is a wise man, may not be a genius. A prudent man is not in a hurry. He is not influence by his emotions and act after weighing the occasion. He deliberates. He pauses. He rethinks and willing to learn. He agonizes. He is willing to see the point of view, which was never in his mind. He may not be learned but has robust common sense and has basic instinct that move man and woman.  are those who think and reason intelligently; is a person having the power of self control to be expected of an ordinary person of the age; a person exercising those qualities of attention, knowledge and intelligence and judgment, which requires of its members for the protection of their own interests and the interests of others.

5.      Presumption of Law & Burden of Proof: The presumption of law and consequent burden of proof has significant bearing on the length of any litigation and also on the outcome of the litigation. Just to indicate the crucialness of aforesaid legal expressions, whereas a presumption of law has the effect of shifting the burden of proof, a misplaced burden of proof may frustrate the whole trial and may result in miscarriage of justice.

It is necessary to analyze what the rule about the rebuttable and irrebuttable presumption of law really means.

Presumption of law: Presumption of law implies the presumption of existence or the absence of a fact which is alleged to exist or not exist. Presumption of law implies that the Courts / judges whilst dealing with a factual backdrop of situation[*], considers certain facts, which are the subject matter of controversy at hand, as proved unless disproved, or regards them as not proved unless proved, [*] having regard to the social settings in which we live, the general behaviour of humans in given situations, the fallible and fragile propensity of humans, the natural course of events, the constitution of the human mind, the springs of human action and the usage and habits of the Society. [Sections 4 & 114 Evidence Act]

Presumption is an inference of certain facts, which are drawn from proved facts. Whilst inferring the existence of a fact, the courts are only applying a process of intelligent reasoning, which the minds of a prudent man would do under similar circumstances.

The probative force of such presumption depends on the number, weight, independence and consistency of elementary circumstances on which presumption has been founded.

A number of circumstances, each individually very slight, may so tally with and confirm each other, as to leave no room for doubt, of fact, which they tend to establish.

Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition, 1979, defines 'Presumption' as under:

"A presumption is a rule of law, statutory or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existence of presumed fact, until presumption is rebutted."

The same dictionary defines 'Rebut' as under:

"In pleading and evidence, to defeat, refute, or take away the effect of something. When a plaintiff in an action produces evidence which raises a presumption of the defendant's liability, and the defendant adduces evidence which shows that the presumption is ill-founded, he is said to "rebut it."

A fact “X” which has relevance in the proof of fact “Y” and inherently has some degree of probative or persuasive value in that behalf, may be weighed by a judicial mind.

When the law makes a rule providing for a rebuttable presumption that, on proof of fact “X”, fact “Y” shall be deemed to be proved unless the contrary is established, what the rule purports to do is to regulate the judicial process and to provide that the Courts will draw the inference from the proof of fact “X” that fact Y” has also been proved, unless the contrary is established.

In other words, the rule takes away judicial discretion, as whether to attach or not the due probative value to fact “X”; and requires prima facie the due probative value to be attached in the matter of the inference as to the existence of fact “Y”, subject, of course, to the said presumption being rebutted by proof to the contrary.

Thus, the rule of rebuttable presumption adds statutory force to the natural and inherent probative value of fact “X” in relation to the proof of the existence of fact “Y”.

In regard to the category of facts in respect of which an irrebuttable presumption is prescribed by law, the position is that the inherent probative value of fact “X” in that behalf is very great and it is very likely that when it is proved in a judicial proceeding, the judicial mind would normally attach great importance to it in relation to the proof of fact “Y”.

In both the cases, rebuttable presumption or irrebuttable presumption, the law purports to assist the judicial mind in appreciating the existence of facts. In one case the probative value is statutorily strengthened but yet left open to rebuttal, in the other case, it is statutorily strengthened and placed beyond the pale of rebuttal.

A rebuttal presumption of law only makes a prima facie case for party in whose favour it exists. It indicates the person on whom the duty lies of going forward with evidence on the fact presumed, and when that party has produced evidence fairly and reasonably tending to show that the real fact is not as presumed, the purpose of presumption is over.

6.      In every trial of Civil Suits or of Criminal prosecution, the material facts, asserted, are required to be proved by means of oral and / or documentary evidence.

7.      Section 58 of the Evidence Act exhorts that facts admitted need not be proved; and sections 17 to 31 of the Evidence Act defines the scope and attributes of an admission of facts.

Admission: Para 66: An admission is a statement of fact which waives or dispenses with the production of evidence by conceding that the fact asserted by the opponent is true. The Supreme Court has observed: Admissions as defined u/s. 17 and 20 and fulfilling requirement of Sec. 21 are substantive evidence. The admission is a best evidence against the party making it though not conclusive, shifts the onus to the maker on principle that what the party himself admits to be true may be reasonably presumed to be true so that until onus is discharged, the facts admitted must be taken to be true, Mohd. Koya, 1979 1 SCR 664. Hindoostan Spg.& Wvg.Mills Ltd. Versus Hindustan Crown Mills [2007 (5) MhLJ 801]

“Admissions”, express or implied, by the opposite party, of the execution of the concerned document in any of the communications exchanged between the parties therein; or the circumstantial evidence, with the aid of sections 114, 35 of said Act, may be extremely useful in proving the execution of any document.





8.      The definition of proved, not proved and disproved provided under the said Act becomes very relevant, and is therefore reproduced.

"Proved".A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.

"Disproved''.A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.

"Not proved".A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved.

Read further at:

10. What constitutes evidence in a criminal trial? It is –
(a)  All relevant and admissible oral statements made before the court by the persons who have “witnessed the alleged incriminating acts and omissions” (sections 59 and 60 of the Evidence Act should be looked into);

(b)  All relevant and admissible documents,

thereby demonstrating / suggesting the existence of the bundle of alleged incriminating acts and omissions of the person, to which he is charged with.

11. Two kind of evidences may be given – oral and documentary. Therefore, it is necessary to appreciate the meaning and attribute of Oral evidence, as set out in sections 59 and 60 of Evidence Act, 1872; and of documentary evidence as set out in sections 3, 61, 62.

12. ORAL EVIDENCE

Section 59: Proof of facts by oral evidence
All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence.

Section 60: 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 saw 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 on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:

Provided that the opinions 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 treatises if the author is dead or cannot be round, 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.

Testimony of a person which does not satisfy the above parameters may be labelled as “Hearsay” evidence.

And, according to principle of “Best Evidence” recognized u/ss 91 and 92 of Evidence Act, oral evidence is not permitted in certain circumstances. Please refer link below.

In this backdrop, the great utility of Section 297(2) of CrPC may be appreciated. The said section expressly mandates that Affidavits shall state separately, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such facts as he has reasonable ground to believe to be true; and in the latter case, the deponent shall clearly state the grounds of such belief. The profound object of Section 297(2) is to flush out Complaints making frivolous allegations against a person.


13. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Section 3 of Evidence Act: Document means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.

Documentary evidence may be given of the original “document” or of the secondary evidence of the document. Therefore, let us briefly look at relevant sections of Evidence Act.

Section 61: Proof of contents of documents
The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.

Section 62: 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 counterpart, 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.

Illustration
A person is shown to have been in possession of a number of placards, all printed at one time from one original. Any one of the placards is primary evidence of the contents of any other, but no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.

Section 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.

Illustrations
(a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that the thing photographed was the original.

(b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the original.

(c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with the original, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is not secondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which it was transcribed was compared with the original.

(d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original, nor an oral account of a photograph or machine-copy of the original, is secondary evidence of the original.

Section 64 of the said Act mandates that all documents must be proved by producing the original itself, except in cases where leading of secondary evidence is permissible under the law.

Section 64: Proof of documents by primary evidence
Documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned.

Section 65 of the said Act lays down the cases in which secondary evidence of documents may be led.

Section 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 52 [India] to be given in evidence;

(g) when the originals consists 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 collection.

In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document 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.

Section 67 to 73 lays down that every document which is relied upon and produced by a party, must be proved to be duly executed in the handwriting / signed by the person, stated in the said document. Sections 68 to 72 deals with proving of attested documents, which are dealt with, hereinafter.


14. Admission and denials of documents: Section 294 of CrPC, 1973, mandates that where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document. Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code without proof of the signature of the person to whom it purports to be signed. Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. The admission or denial of a document contemplates
(a) correctness of contents of the document;
(b) existence of the document;
(c) execution of the document;
(d) issuance or receipt of the document;
(e) custody of the document.

If any of the party denies, it is just and reasonable that it tenders reasons for denying the concerned document under any of the above grounds and bare and unsupported denials shall not be deemed to be denials of a document and proof of such documents may then be dispensed with at the discretion of the Court.


15. Admissibility / Exhibiting of documents [Criminal trials]:

[(2001) 3 SCC 1]
Para 13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fall out of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the Appellate or Revisional Court, when the same question is recanvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the Appellate Court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves? Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remoulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings.
Para 14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment.
If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)
Para 15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is recanvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses.


16. Mode of Proof of document [Criminal trials):

Geeta Marine Services Pvt Ltd [(2009) 2 MhLJ 410]
Para 25 On plain reading of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Panchal (supra), it is apparent that the same does not deal with an objection as regards proof of a document or insufficiency of proof or incorrect mode of proof. The said judgment deals with objection regarding the admissibility of the document in evidence which is a separate category of objection as distinguished from an objection regarding proof as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala (supra). It is true that the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Panchal (supra) will have to be followed by the Courts sub-ordinate to this Court. However, the said decision of Apex Court is applicable only to one category of objection regarding admissibility of the document in evidence and that decision has no application when an objection is raised to the proof or to irregular/insufficient mode of proof of a document. As far as objection regarding inadequacy of stamp is concerned that is already settled by the larger bench of the Apex Court in the case of Javer Chand. In fact, in the decision of this Court in the case of Peacock Industries (supra), the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Panchal (supra) is not read and interpreted to mean that it also applies to the objection regarding proof of documents. Therefore, after filing of affidavit of examination-in-chief and after recording formal examination-in-chief of the concerned witness, an objection raised regarding proof of documents or insufficiency of proof of adopting incorrect mode of proof has to be dealt with immediately by the learned Magistrate before proceeding with the recording of cross-examination. Only in a case where the said adjudication involves a decision on complicated questions which require a very detailed adjudication, it can be postponed till the final hearing. In a case where a document is proved in accordance with Evidence Act but an objection is raised to the admissibility of the said document, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Bipin Panchal (supra), such document can be tentatively marked as an exhibit as objection to the admissibility can be decided at the stage of final hearing as contemplated in the decision of the case of Bipin Panchal (supra).
As pointed out earlier, if objection regarding proof of a document is decided, the complainant or accused who has produced the said documents is put to the notice that the document is not held as proved so that he can seek indulgence from the Court of leading further evidence. This avoids possibility of parties applying at the stage of judgment for recalling the witness or for leading further evidence for proving a document.

17. A Party leading any documentary evidence, may be relying upon documents –
(a) to which he is the author or which is generated at his end or to which he is a party or signatory to the concerned document;
(b) to which are received by him from the opposite party;
(c) which are received from any other person who is not party to the proceedings;
(d) which are Public documents.

As far as documents stated in clauses (a) and (b) above are concerned, the party leading the evidence, would be required to say or set out in his evidence or in his affidavit of evidence, how (the manner and the circumstances in which) the said document came to be executed;

As far as documents stated in clause (c) above is concerned, the party leading the evidence, would be required to say how he came into the possession of the said document, and he is not obliged to say or set out, in his affidavit of evidence, how (the manner and the circumstances in which) the said document came to be executed; and regarding clause (d) the Public documents, please see sections 74,76,77,78,79 of Evidence Act, 1872, and the link below.


18. Mere relevancy or admissibility of document, led in evidence, is not suffice

Mere relevancy or admissibility of document, led in evidence, is not sufficed. Every evidence which is led, whether oral or documentary, must further the case of the party, who is leading the evidence. This is called Probative value of documentary evidence.

The document which is tendered in evidence must prove or disprove the fact in issue. In the case of H. Siddiqui (Dead) by LRs v. A. Ramalingam (2011) 4 SCC 240 Para’s 15 & 17, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed to say that:

15.       In State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh this Court considered the issue in respect of admissibility of documents or contents thereof and held as under:  (SCC p. 138, Para 40)
“40. ….Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value quite another – these two aspects cannot be combined.  A document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and weight or its probative value may be nil.”

17.       Therefore, it is the duty of the court to examine whether the documents produced in the court or contents thereof have any probative value.

19. This is how we go ahead in exhibiting of documents –

1.      Produce the original document – primary evidence – sections 62 and 64 of Evidence Act, 1872.

2.      Identify the document – i.e. say, if it is a Power of Attorney, Sale deed, gift deed, Notice, Agreement etc.

3.      Prove the execution of the document by proving the signature and / or handwriting of the author of the document concerned; and Signature and handwriting of the author of the document concerned may be proved by any of the following ways, as may be applicable to the facts of the case –

(a)    By stating that the document concerned was signed in the presence of the deponent (the person leading the concerned documentary evidence), and the deponent identifies the signature of the author – Section 47; or

(b)   By Stating that, deponent has received document written by that person in answer to documents written by the deponent or under his authority and addressed to that person – Section 47; or

(c)    By stating that, in ordinary course of business, documents written by that person have been habitually submitted to the deponent. Relevant sections –  47; or

(d)   Summon the author of the document (S.67)


VERY IMPORTANT: Where the parties have admitted the contents of the documents, either in the pleadings or during the course of the proceedings, the opposite party can rest on admission alone; and he need not produce and prove the original document – Zafar versus Zahur – AIR 1926 All 741.


IMPORTANT POINT

20. Proving of execution of a document does not by itself prove the correctness of the facts stated therein in the document, UNLESS, there is an “admission of any material fact” by the author / signatory to the said document, or the person who is privy to the said document. The facts, or rather material facts stated therein in the concerned document, are to be proved independently, by leading oral or documentary evidences, as the “nature of fact” may require.

Like for example, the State Prosecution produces the FIR copy during the course of trial. The copy of FIR so produced only proves the factum of registration of FIR, and not the facts stated therein in the FIR. The allegations made in the FIR, obviously have to be proved independently. Similarly, suppose a Notice u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, was sent by Speed Post / Regd. Post; and the said Notice was duly served upon the other party; and thereafter, at the time of leading evidence / marking of exhibits of documents, the copy of the said Notice, alongwith Speed Post / Regd. Post Article and acknowledged A/d card, was produced by the Complainant; and the Accused do not object to the said exhibiting of Notice document. In this backdrop, the exhibiting of Notice document only proves the factum of receipt of said Notice by the Accused; and the allegations made in the said Notice, obviously have to be proved independently.

The degree of truthfulness of the contents of the document, of the party leading the evidence, would be judged only after the cross-examination by the adversary. Truthfulness of the contents of the document is the subject matter of appreciation of evidence. And, if the document which was originated from the adversary (opposite party) is duly exhibited by the Court, then, to the extent facts stated therein which may be prejudicial to the adversary, may deemed to have been admitted by the adversary, and need not be proved, as mandated u/s 58 of Evidence Act.

It is well settled that production of documents do not by themselves prove the truthfulness of the contents of documents; Proof of the truthfulness of the contents of documents has to be given by cogent evidence – AIR 1989 Pat 66.

Balance sheet relating to accounts do not prove by themselves; and the facts mentioned therein have to be proved by evidence, after giving an opportunity to the opposite party to contest the correctness of such evidence by cross-examination – ILR (1963) 2 Punj 28.

When an attestor and scribe were not examined, it was held that such non-examination cannot by itself lead to an inference that the document was not executed when the executants admits its execution – Surender Reddy versus Govt. of A.P. – (1979) 1 An WR 416.

Mere consent of a party to exhibit the document does not amount to an admission of truthfulness of its content – AIR 1973 Bom 40.

The correctness of contents of a letter cannot and do not stand proved, even if it is admitted that letters were passed between the parties – Hoare Miller versus UOI – (1961) 65 CWN 1206.


AIR 1972 SC 608

19 It was next urged that even if the reports in question are admissible we cannot look into the contents of those documents. This contention is again unacceptable. Once a document is properly admitted, the contents of that document are also admitted in evidence though those contents may not be conclusive evidence.


AIR 1981 SC 2085

Para 16: Undoubtedly, mere proof of the handwriting of a document would not tantamount to proof of all the contents or the facts stated in the document. If the truth of the facts stated in a document is in issue mere proof of the handwriting and execution of the document would not furnish evidence of the truth of the facts or contents of the document. The truth or otherwise of the facts or contents so stated would have to be proved by admissible evidence, i.e. by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of the facts in issue. But in this case Bhikhubhai Gourishankar Joshi who filed an affidavit on behalf of the, appellant has referred to the averments in the letter and the cable. He is a principal officer and constituted attorney of the appellant company. Once the receipt of the letter and the cable are admitted or proved coupled with the fact that even after the dispute arose and before the suit was filed, in the correspondence that ensued between the parties, the respondent did not make any overt or covert reference to the arbitration agreement and utter failure of the respondent to reply to the letter and the cable controverting the averments made therein would unmistakably establish the truth of the averments made in the letter. What is the effect of averments is a different question altogether but the averments contained in the letter and the cable are satisfactorily proved.

Para 17: Admission, unless explained, furnishes the best evidence.


AIR 1941 All 150

4. In order to enforce a claim on a mortgage the plaintiff is required to produce the original bond or its copy when circumstances exist which entitle the plaintiff to produce its copy. Gases however may occur where admissions are available to the plaintiff, admissions made in the course of pleadings or outside pleadings which go to prove his claim. In such cases he can rest on admissions alone and he need not produce and prove the original document or its copy. But the admissions must be sufficient to cover the entire claim and must relieve the plaintiff of the necessity of relying on the document or any portion of it. If the admissions are not available or if they are indefinite or insufficient, then the plaintiff can succeed only in the ordinary way, that is in a mortgage suit, by producing the original bond or its copy. Oases of former kind are Chuni Kuar v. Udai Ram ('83) 6 All. 73, Mullu v. Deokaran ('13) 11 A.L.J. 734 and Hikmatullah Khan v. Abdul Azim Khan ('21) 8 A.I.R. 1921 All. 218.
Cases of the latter kind are Sri Ram v. Ram Lal ('13) 11 A.L.J. 255 and Muhammad Zafar v. Zahur Husain ('26) 13 A.I.R. 1926 All. 741.

21. Objections which may be raised to the documentary evidence –

1.      That, the document is irrelevant to the facts in issue; and / or is inadmissible;

2.      When secondary evidence  of the concerned document is led, that, the execution of the document is not proved in accordance with Section 65 of Evidence Act, 1872;

3.      That, document is not in the handwriting or is not signed by the person, alleged to be written or signed; and / or the document is forged.


22. Kinds of documents and manner of their proving

a)      To prove due execution of Power of Attorney – refer section 85, Evidence Act;

b)      To prove email communication / receipt of or sent to – refer section 85B r/w section 65B;

To prove SMS communications – refer section 88A r/w 65B;

To prove electronic records, electronic signature – refer section 85B r/w section 65B

To prove “electronic record” which are 5 years old – refer section 90A;

To prove agreements which are entered into by means of Email etc – refer section 85A r/w 65B

c)      To prove a document which is 30 years old – refer section 90;

d)     To prove foreign judicial records – refer section 86

e)      To prove Public documents – refer section 79 r/w sections 74, 76, 77

f)       To prove records of judicial proceedings – refer section 80 r/w 33

g)      To prove service of Notices / documents sent by Regd. Post / Speed post etc. – refer section 114 [ill(e)]; section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1897;

h)      To prove News Reports – refer section 81



Secondary evidence (S.63, 65)



Proof of Electronic evidence



Proof of Hand writing / Signature (S.47, 67, 73; S.311A CrPC)



Proof of document 30 years old (S.90)



Proof of meaning of ambiguous documents (S.93 to 100)



Proof of document which is attested (S.68 to 71)



Best evidence Rule. (S.91, 92)



Judges power to compel the production of any document (S.165) 



Public documents (S.74, 76, 77, 78, 79)



How a Power of Attorney is said to be duly proved. (S.85)



Foreign Judicial Records (S.86)



Exhibiting of documents



23. Electronic Evidence, proving of –

The Complainant may rely upon evidences which are contained in the form of electronic records such as Email / SMSs / Tape Recorded conversation / CCTV footage / Whats app chat / any other Electronic Record. The contents in the said electronic records may be reproduced in the form of printouts / CD / DVD / any other storage device, and the evidence of the contents of these electronic records may be given in accordance with section 65 B of Evidence Act, alongwith a certificate contemplated under the said section.


2015 AIR SC 180

Para 15: Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub- Section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act:

(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;

(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;

(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and

(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.

Para 16: Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;

(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;

(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;

(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and

(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.

Para 17: It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.

Para 18: Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, the question would arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A opinion of examiner of electronic evidence.

Para 19: The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India.

Certificate u/s 65B(4) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

I, _______, the in-charge of operation of the concerned computer, do hereby state and certify as under –

1.      I have seen, perused and verified the email dated ______ sent / received by me, forwarded / addressed through an electronic mail server, to the addressee, i.e. to ______ which has also been marked as copy to ____________.

2.      I state and certify that the said email is information contained in an electronic record.

3.      I state and certify that the above referred e-mail was sent / received by me, which was to my knowledge at all times, on my office computer. The said computer is operated by me and was functioning normally at all times. The document annexed hereto is the identical copy of the e-mail which had been sent / received to / from _____  / Accused No.___.

4.      I further state and certify that the said e-mail relied upon, is true copy/reproduction of the electronic records, which are regularly fed into / transmitted through the said computer in the ordinary course of my activities.  There is no distortion in the accuracy of the content of the hard copies of e-mail, which is relied upon in the present affidavit and produced in the list of documents.

5.      I further state and certify that throughout the material part of the relevant period, my said computer was operating properly and nothing happened so as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents.

6.      I further state and certify that the said email is produced with the help of appropriate and normal equipment required in normal course to produce them and the contents of the said email print outs is the same as reflected in my computer system. The printer used to reproduce the said email is _________.

And whereas I am in full control of the operation of the concerned computer, the above information is being certified on the basis of verification of said computer device which I believe is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

________
_________
The person In-charge of Computer system


24. By way of illustration, it is presumed that, a Complainant’s Advocate is carrying out the examination in chief of the Complainant and his witnesses. Therefore, the Advocate for the Complainant would call upon the Complainant and his witnesses, one by one, to enter upon the witness box.

An Oath is administered to the complainant witness that he would speak nothing but the truth.

Examination in Chief:

Section 137: Examination-in-chief
The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief. Cross-examination. The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination. Re-examination. The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.

Section 138: Order of examinations
Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Direction of re-examination. The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.


        i.            The questions must only be asked which are strictly relevant to the issue. Questions must be confined to facts only and no question should be asked on the point of law; and further that nothing should be asked what the deponent inferred from the facts. The eliciting or giving of personal opinion by witness is not permissible, except of a “expert witness”, contemplated u/s 45 of Evidence Act, 1872.

      ii.            The question in examination in chief should be framed carefully and be put deliberately to the witness, so as to bring answer just so much you desire and no more.

    iii.            Elicit opinion is not permissible in examination in chief – AIR 1972 All 308.

    iv.            When the court reject evidence, the party whose evidence is rejected, should ask the presiding judge to take a note of it. 21 CrLJ 21.

      v.            Great caution is required in examination of other witnesses after the first, to prevent their disagreement to first testimony.

    vi.            If a direct examination is properly and skillfully conducted, the impression thus made by an honest witness upon the presiding judge is more lasting than any argument of the counsel.

  vii.            Cases are often won or lost on the straight forward statement of the parties, and the natural homely way they sometimes have of putting things.

viii.            Adverse inference may be drawn against a party for not calling an important witness. Nagendra Dhar versus Emperor – 38 CrLJ 203.

    ix.            Section 144: Evidence as to matters in writing: Any witness may be asked, whilst under examination, whether any contract, grant or other disposition of property, as to which he is giving evidence, was not contained in a document, and if he says that it was, or if he is about to make any statement as to the contents of any document, which, in the opinion of the Court, ought to be produced, the adverse party may object to such evidence being given until such document is produced, or until facts have been proved which entitle the party who called the witness to give secondary evidence of it.

      x.            Sections 141, 142, 143: Leading questions: Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question. Section 142: When they must not be asked: Leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court. The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved. Section 143: When they may be asked: Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination.


Cross Examination:

        i.            Cross examination is said to be one of the most efficacious tests, which the law has devised for the discovery of truth. AIR 1936 PC 63.

      ii.            In dealing with a witness who is to be compelled to speak the truth against his will, the greatest success lies in drawing out what he wishes to keep. This can only be done by repeating the interrogation in greater detail. He will give answers which he thinks do not hurt his cause; and afterwards from many things he will have confessed, he may be led into such a strait, that what he will not say, he cannot deny.

    iii.            For as in an oration, we generally collect scattered parts, which singly do not appear to press on the accused/ witness, yet by being put together, prove the charge. So the witness of this sort should be asked many things as what went before, what came after, as to place, time and person, and other things, so that he must fall upon some answer after which he must necessarily either confess what is desired or would contradict his former statement. If this doesn’t happen, the judge may be led to suspect him, being unworthy of a man to rely on his testimony.

    iv.            A witness on his examination in chief discloses but a part of the necessary facts. That which remains suppressed or undeveloped may be of two sorts, (a) the qualifying circumstances of the subject of testimony; (b) the facts which would diminish and impeach the personal trustworthiness of the witness.

      v.            If cross examination is a powerful engine, it is likewise an extremely dangerous one, very apt to reveal even on those who know how to use it.

    vi.            The object of cross examination is to impeach the accuracy, credibility and general value of the evidence, given in chief, to detect discrepancies, to elicit suppressed facts.

  vii.            A witness should be cross examined on each and every point. If a party fails to cross examine him / her on a particular point, it would entail a presumption that party not cross examining the witness had accepted such evidence – 2015 CrLJ 4303 Jhar; (1987) 91 Cal WN 844; (1985) 28 Del LT 360; 1969 CrLJ 1002; AIR 1969 Raj 219; AIR 1961 Cal 359.

viii.            Section 145: Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing
A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.

    ix.            Sections 141, 142, 143: Leading questions: Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question. Section 142: When they must not be asked: Leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court. The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already sufficiently proved. Section 143: When they may be asked: Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination.

Some tips for person going into witness box for his cross examination

1.      If the cross examining lawyer alleges anything absurd or falsity – say “it is not correct”

2.      If you do not understand any question or proposition put forward – ask again, unless you understand it fully.

3.      If the cross examining lawyer ask anything you don’t know – say “I don’t know”.

4.      If the cross examining lawyer makes any false suggestion – say “it is not correct”

5.      If the cross examining lawyer ask to produce any document – say “I will take advice of my lawyer”

6.      If you are being cross examined in respect of any document – before answering the question, with the permission of the court, you are permitted to look into the contents of the said document.

7.      When a question is put forward by the cross examining lawyer, answer the question to the judge and not to the said lawyer.

8.      Stick to the facts of the case. It must be secured that you do not contradict to what is stated in the complaint / evidence / examination in chief. Do not worry about minor contradictions.

9.      Once the cross is complete, obtain the copy immediately from the court and see that your answers are correctly recorded; and if there is any statement not correctly recorded, brought this immediately to the notice of your lawyer; and he will tell the court accordingly.


Re-examination:

        i.            Re-examination is provided in the law for the purposes of explaining matters referred in cross examination; and if any new matter is introduced in Re-examination, the adversary is further entitled for cross examination.

      ii.            The object of Re-examination is to clear ambiguities that have arisen upon cross examination. AIR 1937 All 171; (1999) 8 SCC 649; AIR 1964 SC 1963.


David Paul Brown’s golden Rules
        i.            The object of examination in chief is to get from the witness all material facts within his knowledge relating to the case.

      ii.            Never begin if you are not ready.

    iii.            If you are finished. Stop it. Don’t ask for the sake of asking.

    iv.            Modulate your voice as the circumstances warrant; inspire the fearful and repress the bold.

      v.            Speak to your witness clearly and distinctly as if you were awake and engaged in a matter of interest; and make him also speak distinctly to your question.

    vi.            Never object to a question of your adversary unless you are well prepared to enforce your objection.

  vii.            Never ask a question without an object. The question must well be connected with the case.

viii.            If witness is bold and may injure your case by pertness or for wardness, observe a gravity and ceremony of manner towards them, which may be calculated to repress their assurances.

    ix.            If they are alarmed of diffident and their thoughts are evidently scattered, commence your examination with matters of familiar character, remotely connected with the subject of the alarm. For example, where do you live. Do you know the parties. And when you have restored them to their composure, proceed to essential feature of the case.

25. Please find hereinbelow some illustration as to proving of an document. Make changes as applicable to the facts of the case.

Proving Email:
I say that I have sent / received an email dated _______ from /to my email ________ to / from   Accused No.____  / any other person, Email ______ Subject: ___________, inter alia, that ___________ ; and the said email was also made copy to __________.

I say that the aforesaid Email was sent / received by me in the regular course of my business, and is produced by my office computer and having lawful control over the use of that computer, during the period over which my said computer was regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of sending and receiving Emails and other business activity;

I further say that my said Computer, which contains the said Email, was regularly receiving and sending such Email in the ordinary course of the sending and receiving Emails and other business activity;

I further say that during the material part of the period when the said Email was sent / received, and reproduced now, my said computer was operating properly;

I further say that the said Email print out is the reproduction of the Email which was sent / received by me through the said computer in the ordinary course of the sending and receiving Emails and other business activity;

I am producing the print out of the aforesaid Email dated _______, alongwith the Certificate as required u/s 65B(4), the contents of which are true and correct, and the same may be taken on record and marked as Exhibit.


Proving receipt of acknowledgment by any person of any document:
I say that I have handed over the ________ (description of the document) to _________.  I say that said ________ duly acknowledged the receipt, by putting the rubber stamp of “ ___________” over the said document, and endorsed his signature over the said document.


Proving the execution of power of Attorney by the complainant:
I say that the complainant ________, because of he ________, he is unable to attend the court proceedings, and therefore the said complainant has executed a Power of Attorney in my favour. The donor of power, i.e. the complainant herein has put his left hand thumb impression before the Notary, in my presence on the said power of Attorney. The passport size photograph of said donor is also pasted on the right hand side of his said left thumb impression. I say that complainant and I both signed before the Notary over the said Power of Attorney. I further say that the Notary Mr. _________ recorded the execution of said Power of Attorney and have assigned Register No._____ dated ______ to the said Power of Attorney. I herewith produce the true copy of said Power of Attorney, the contents of which are true and correct and same may be taken on record and marked as Exhibit.

Proving the execution of Bill of exchange
I say that at the time of lending money to Accused No. ____ for Rs.____, as agreed and in discharge of their liability accrued under the said financial assistance / loan, the said Accused No.___, executed and handed over a Bill of Exchange for Rs. ________. I say that Accused No.____ signed over the said Bill of exchange in my presence, and has also signed at Notice of Dishonour Waived; and Accused No.___ imposed / affixed / inscribed the Rubber Stamp of Accused No.___ over the said Bill of Exchange. I say that Accused No. ____ accepted the said Bill of exchange and has also signed over the said Bill of exchange in my presence. I say that Accused No. ____ handed over to me the said Bill of Exchange, which did not bear the name of the Payee and the date; and therefore I have filled up the date and my name on the said Bill of Exchange as ______ and date ______. I produce the original Bill of Exchange dated _____. I say that the contents of the said Bill of Exchange are true and correct and same may be taken on record and marked as Exhibit. I say that it is permissible under section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Proving the cheque:
I say that Accused No._____ in discharge of his liability accrued under the ________ issued a cheque No.______ drawn on ________, Branch, _______ for Rs._______, bearing my name on the said cheque. I say that said Accused No. ____  signed in my presence over the said cheque. I say that said Accused No. ____ / any other person handed over to me the said cheque / sent the said cheque by courier to me. I say that the said cheque did not bear the name of the payee, nor any date; and therefore I have filled up my name and the date on the said cheque. I say that it is permissible under section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. I produce the original cheque bearing No.______, dated ___________, drawn on _______ Bank, for Rs.___________, the contents of which are true and correct, and the same may be taken on record and marked as Exhibit.


Bank Memo:
I say that I deposited the said cheque No._____, on _____ with my Account maintained with _________ Branch _____. I say that my Bank  vide its Memo dated ______ intimated to me that the said cheque is returned unpaid for the reason "Exceeds Arrangement / Funds Insufficient". I produce the original Bank Memo, which also bears the image of the dishonoured cheque, the contents of which are true and correct, and the same may be taken on record and marked as Exhibit.


Statutory Notice:
I say that, thereafter I have through my Advocate _________, issued a Statutory Demand Notice dated ________, addressed at the last known and correct address of Accused No.___, and also to Accused Nos._____ herein, and inter alia, called upon all the Accused, to pay the cheque amount, within 15 days from the receipt of Notice. I produce the office copy of said Notices sent to all the Accused herein, the originals being in the possession of respective Accused; and I identify the signature of my Advocate; and the contents of which are true and correct, and the same may be taken on record and marked as Exhibit.

Proving of despatch of statutory Notice by Speed Post / Regd Post / Courier Receipt
I say that the said demand notices were sent to all the Accused through Speed Post / Regd Post / Courier, vide Receipt Nos. ___________ dated ________. I produce the said original Speed Post / Regd Post / Courier Receipt dated _________, the contents of which are true and correct, and the same may be taken on record and marked as Exhibit.


Proving of receipt of statutory Notices
I say that the aforesaid demand notices sent through Speed Post / Regd Post / Courier Receipt were duly received by all the Accused on about _______. I produce the extract of online Report of India Post, evidencing the delivery of concerned speed post article to Accused Nos.______, the contents of which are true and correct and the same may be taken on record and marked as Exhibit. I also produce the A/D cards received under Speed Post / Regd Post article sent to Accused Nos._________, the contents of which are true and correct and the same may be taken on record and marked as Exhibit.

Proving that accused directors are in-charge of day to day affairs of business of the accused company (if applicable to the facts of the case)
I say that, in statutory Notice dated _________ to Accused Nos._______, it was expressly stated that Accused Nos.______ are in charge of, and are responsible to Accused No.1 company for the conduct of the business of the Accused No.1 company; and this fact is not disputed by either of the Accused. I say that that none of the Accused have made any reply to the Notices sent to them; and all the contentions set out in the said notice have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged.


Proving admission of liability
I say that I have all along, coordinated with Accused No.____ for the payment of the _________. I further say that Accused No. ____ has unambiguously admitted their liability towards the ___________, wherein Accused No. ____has sent an email _____, dated _____to ______, Subject: ________, inter alia, that, __________ thereby clearly admitting their liability. [Proving Email: Necessary averments in the Affidavit: (Reproduce stated hereinabove)]


Proving consent, connivance and neglect of accused, as contemplated u/s 141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
I further say that, I have repeatedly followed up for the payment, and tried to reach out Accused No. ____, but Accused No.____ neglected to make payment. I therefore say that, having regard to the facts of the case, and having regard to the nature of conduct of Accused No.____, the consent, connivance and neglect, as contemplated u/s 141(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, should also be attributed towards Accused No.___.






Legal issues !!
If you are facing any of these issues like (a) Recovery of Moneys (b) Immovable property disputes (c) grievances against Municipalities & Govts., including challenge to legitimacy of laws etc. (d) grievances against illegalities and highhandedness of Police like illegal arrests, refusal to register FIR, deliberately flawed investigations, etc (e) False FIRs (f) False Claims (g) False evidences (h) Grievances against Judges (i) Illegal or perverse Orders of the Courts / Tribunals, among others.
or
If you are looking for draft of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the nature and attribute of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the procedure followed in any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the grounds on which any order of the court / tribunal is challenged; or if you are facing any frivolous litigation.

https://www.litigationplatform.com/



Thank you.

Comments

A petitioner said…
Mr. Jalan,

Extremely useful in understanding the concept of evidence and exhibiting it.

Thank you,

Popular posts from this blog

The Commercial Courts / Suits - Pleadings and Procedure

The Commercial Courts, Act, 2015 – A broad framework In order to ensure speedy disposal of disputes which arises from commercial transactions involving high value, the Parliament of India has come out with a unique legislation namely, The Commercial Courts, Act, 2015; wherein Commercial Courts / Divisions are to be constituted in the existing district Courts and in High Courts; and wherein disputes arising from specified commercial dealings involving claim of Rs.1.00 Crore or above would be adjudicated by these newly constituted commercial Courts / Divisions. By virtue of recent Amendments, the limit of Rs.1.00 crore has been reduced to Rs.3.00 Lakhs; and accordingly claims relating to commercial disputes involving Rs.3.00 Lakhs could now be maintainable under this special regime.  And accordingly, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is substantially amended, wherein new Order XIII-A and XV-A are inserted, apart from new Order XI, Sections 35 for costs, Verification of Plea

Form II under Rule 6 of Rules, 2006, framed under the impugned Act

Impugned Provision / other anomaly Breach of Section / Article FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the impugned Act Section 3 – Explanation II; Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the impugned Act. Principles of natural justice. FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)     To The Court of Magistrate .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... Application under section ........................ of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)            SHOWETH: That the application under section.................of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is being filed along with a copy of Domestic Incident Report by the: