The Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandvilkar (supra) in
paragraph14 held :
"14. Consequently whenever there is a
variance between an unproved private
document or its copy and a certified
extract of a public record, the later
must prevail as it has more probative
value, carrying the presumption as it
does under section 79 of the Evidence
Act. This presumption would continue to
hold until it is rebutted. It can be
rebutted only by production of the
original public record from which the
extract is made out and certified to be
tried by the relevant authority. Only if
it is so rebutted, such certified copy
issued by a public authority would stand
nullified." (emphasis added).
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.365 OF 2012
Subhash Somla Pawar, V The State of Maharashtra.
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J.
PRONOUNCED ON : 04-02-2013
Print Page
case of Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandvilkar (supra) in
paragraph14 held :
"14. Consequently whenever there is a
variance between an unproved private
document or its copy and a certified
extract of a public record, the later
must prevail as it has more probative
value, carrying the presumption as it
does under section 79 of the Evidence
Act. This presumption would continue to
hold until it is rebutted. It can be
rebutted only by production of the
original public record from which the
extract is made out and certified to be
tried by the relevant authority. Only if
it is so rebutted, such certified copy
issued by a public authority would stand
nullified." (emphasis added).
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.365 OF 2012
Subhash Somla Pawar, V The State of Maharashtra.
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J.
PRONOUNCED ON : 04-02-2013