2014 (2) TMI 193 - HC - Indian Laws

Rejection of application under Sections 65, 74, 78 and 79 of the Evidence Act read with Section 35A of the Act - Held that - There is no illegality or perversity visible in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge - if any provision is given in a Special Act which is contrary to the provisions of the general law then the special law shall supersede the provisions of the general law. Under such circumstances, looking at the provisions of Sections 36A and 36B of the Act, the prosecution not only could file copy of the documents as mentioned under Section 36B of the Act but, prove such copies as original. There is no need to file or show the original documents before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the application of the prosecution appears to be a formality. The prosecution could prove the copies of the documents as mentioned under Section 36B of the Act and therefore, if the revisionary Court has accepted the application filed by the prosecution then no illegality or perversity has been done by the revisionary Court - since there is no basis by which the revision filed by the applicants can be accepted. The present revision is hereby dismissed by confirming the order passed by the revisionary Court - Decided against Revisionist.

Summary

Issues:
Revision against order setting aside application under Evidence Act Sections 65, 74, 78, and 79.

Analysis:
The case involved a revision against an order dated 29-12-2010, where the 1st Additional Judge set aside an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Criminal Case No. 3509/1997. The applicants were prosecuted for not paying Excise duty and moved an application under Sections 65, 74, 78, and 79 of the Evidence Act. The trial Court dismissed the application, leading to a revision filed by the prosecution. The revisionary Court allowed the application, prompting the present revision.

The learned counsel for the applicants argued that no secondary evidence could be adduced as the original documents were with the prosecution. They cited judgments by the Apex Court and the High Court to support their contention. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that special provisions of Sections 36A and 36B of the Act allowed the prosecution to prove documents without submitting the originals.

The High Court, after considering the arguments, found that the revisionary Court rightly discussed the matter. It noted that the judgments cited by the applicants interpreted general provisions of the Evidence Act, not the special provisions under Sections 36A and 36B. The Court emphasized that if a Special Act provides contrary provisions to general law, the special law prevails. Therefore, under Sections 36A and 36B, the prosecution could prove copies of documents as originals without submitting the originals. The Court concluded that the revisionary Court did not err in accepting the prosecution's application.

Based on the above analysis, the High Court dismissed the present revision, confirming the revisionary Court's order. The Court directed copies of the order to be sent to the trial Court and the revisionary Court, instructing the trial Court to proceed with the case and informing them that the interim stay granted was vacated.