On the question of ratification of the resolution allegedly passed on 28th June, 2005, the High Court held that the Sessions Judge was not justified in entertaining a photocopy of the document relied upon by the accused at the revisional stage, placing implicit reliance upon the same and interfering with the on-going proceedings before the Magistrate. The High Court observed:
The original document was not before the Court and only a photocopy of the document purporting to be minutes of the meeting was filed and on the basis of such photocopy produced during the revision application by the accused persons, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge jumped to the conclusion that such a resolution was passed and the acts of 28.6.2005 were ratified. In my opinion, it will not be appropriate for the Addl. Sessions Judge. {Para 6}
10. It is interesting to note that even in the present SLPs the Petitioner has filed an unsigned copy of the alleged minutes of the meeting dated 19th July, 2005. We do not think that we can possibly look into that document without proper proof and without verification of its genuineness. There was and is no clear and unequivocal admission on the record, at least none was brought to our notice, regarding the genuineness of the document or its probative value. The complainant-Respondent in this petition was also not willing to concede that the document relied upon could possibly result in the ratification of an act which was non est being a mere forgery. At any rate the document could not be said to be of unimpeachable character nor was there any judicial compulsion much less an exceptional or formidable one to allow its production in revisional proceedings or to accept it as legally admissible evidence for determining the correctness of the order passed by the trial Court. That apart whether or not document dated 19th July, 2005, could possibly have the effect of ratifying the resolution allegedly passed on 28th June, 2005 was also a matter that could not be dealt with summarily, especially when the former did not even make a reference to the latter.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SLP (Crl.) No. 4606 of 2011
Decided On: 16.12.2011
Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Rajeev Sawhney and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.S. Chauhan and T.S. Thakur, JJ.
Author: T.S. Thakur, J.
Citation: AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 660, 2012 (1) SCC 699,MANU/SC/1502/2011.
Print Page