Whether carbon copy of document signed by parties can be treated as original document?

The

High Court held that a carbon copy of a document which carbon copy

is signed by both the parties cannot be termed as an original

document under Section 62 of the Evidence Act. This finding of the

High Court is absolutely incorrect and against the provision of

Section 62 of the Evidence Act. This carbon copy was prepared in

the same process as the original document and once it is signed by

both the parties, it assumes the character of the original

document.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No(s). 6706/2013

MOHINDER SINGH  Vs JASWANT KAUR 

Dated:SEPTEMBER 11, 2019.

Print Page

Whether any document can be exhibited if its maker has admitted his signature even if contents of document is not proved?

In the case of Mrs. Cynthia Martin Wd/o A.V. Martin v/s. Prembehari s/o. Makhanlal Yadu & Another reported in MANU/MH/0074/1998 : 1998 (1) Bom. C.R. 631, it is observed in paragraph 12 that:-

By the said letter, it was informed by the competent authority that the house was not situated in the slum area. Shri De submitted that the only witness, who has been examined, has not been able to give any details regarding the said letter and mere proof of the signature would not amount to the proof of the contents of the letter. It is true that mere proof of the signature could not prove the contents of the letter. However, that is not a case here. The letter is clear enough, and once the letter is proved by proving the signature of the maker thereof, there would hardly be any reason to doubt the same regarding the veracity of the contents therein.

24. In the case of Grasim Industries Limited (supra), following observation made in paragraph 6:-

In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted.

... Hence, it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the document, Ext. D-8 bears his signatures that it was signed under some mistake.

25. In the case of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (supra), the following observation was made:-

The learned trial Judge curiously declined to exhibit the document and marked it for identification s Ex. X/6 on the ground that even if the signature of the vendor on the document is proved, unless the contents are proved, the document cannot be admitted. We are afraid we cannot share the view of the learned trial Judge. The document stands proved as soon as the fact of execution is proved and it is wholly irrelevant whether the contents are proved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3190 of 2011 with Civil Application No. 956 of 2011

Decided On: 14.11.2011

Dinesh Vasantrai Bhuta  Vs.  Vasantben Harvilas Jani

Print Page

Whether carbon copy of leave and licence agreement is admissible in evidence?

Relying on paragraph 5 of the Affidavit Of Examination In Chief of the Plaintiff, it was contended that the Plaintiff has specifically admitted the signature on the Leave and License Agreement and what was produced during cross examination was the carbon copy and the Plaintiff has admitted his signature thereon. Relying upon section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it was submitted that carbon copy was itself primary evidence and, hence, it has rightly been directed to be exhibited. It was submitted that in any case, the carbon copy would be admissible as Secondary Evidence in view of Section 63(2) and since the Plaintiff failed to produce the original despite service of notice, the Plaintiff was not entitled to oppose the production of the carbon copy.

In view of the aforesaid legal position and in the peculiar facts of this case, where the Plaintiff has himself pleaded that the document is a camouflage, once the Plaintiff has admitted his signature on the carbon copy, the document stands proved and has been rightly exhibited.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 3190 of 2011 with Civil Application No. 956 of 2011

Decided On: 14.11.2011

Dinesh Vasantrai Bhuta  Vs.  Vasantben Harvilas Jani

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Godbole, J.

Print Page

When carbon copy of statement under S 164 of CRPC is admissible in evidence?

 I do not find substance in the
apprehension of counsel for Applicant. Proof of a
document is separate aspect. Even if the documents

are treated as primary evidence, the same have to
be strictly dealt with and treated within the
ambit and scope of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. I find
Section 62, Explanation (2) of the Evidence Act
read with Judgment in the matter of Prithi Chand
(supra) applies to present matter. When the
statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were found
to be not traceable, the carbon copies of the
statements have been rightly treated as primary
evidence as they were made by one uniform process.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1018 OF 2014
Krishna Sahebrao Patil,

VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATE : 5TH MARCH, 2014
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)2657

Print Page

Whether Carbon copy of dying declaration can be admitted in evidence as secondary evidence?

The whole emphasis before the courts below as well as before this Court has been that the dying declaration cannot be relied upon since the original of the same had not been filed by the prosecution and the carbon copy could not have been exhibited and taken on record. It has been further contended that even if the carbon copy could be relied upon it may have been tampered with as is evident from many interpolations and cuttings.

It is true that a party who wishes to rely upon the contents of a document must adduce primary evidence of the contents, and only in the exceptional cases will secondary evidence be admissible. However, if secondary evidence is admissible, it may be adduced in any form in which it may be available, whether by production of a copy, duplicate copy of a copy, by oral evidence of the contents or in another form. The secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that the alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original. It should be emphasised that the exceptions to the rule requiring primary evidence are designed to provide relief in a case where a party is genuinely unable to produce the original through no fault of that party." A similar view has been re-iterated in J. Yashoda v. K. Shobha Rani, AIR 2007 SC 172.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Kaliya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

[Criminal Appeal No.228 of 2008]

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

Dated 30 -7 2013

Citation;2013 (4)Crimes 401 SC

Print Page

Supreme Court: Carbon copy made by one uniform process is primary evidence as per the Evidence Act.

  The learned Sessions Judge felt that it would not be possible to secure her presence without undue delay, and therefore, permitted the prosecution to prove the certificate through PW-2 Dr. Kapila, who was conversant with her hand-writing and signature, he having worked with her for about two years. He stated that the carbon copy of the certificate Ex P-E was prepared by Dr. Vedwa by one process and bears her signature. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that this certificate was inadmissible in evidence since the prosecution has failed to prove that the original certifi- cate was lost and not available. Section 32 of the Evidence Act provides that when a statement, written or verbal, is made by a person in the discharge of professional duty whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay, the same is relevant and admissible in evidence. Besides, since one carbon copy was made by one uniform process the same was primary evidence within the meaning of explanation 2 to Section 62 of the Evidence Act. Therefore the medical certificate Ex. P-E was clearly admissible in evidence.

Supreme Court of India

Prithi Chand vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 17 January, 1989

Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 702, 1989 SCR (1) 123

BENCH:
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
NATRAJAN, S. (J)

Print Page