How to prove documents obtained under right to information Act?

 In view of the above analysis, the xerox copy certified by the designated Public Information Officer under Right to Information Act of the private documents are not certified copies within the meaning of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. They are merely true copies of the private documents available in the records of the particular Department. The production and marking of such copies is permissible only after laying a foundation for acceptance of secondary evidence under clauses (a) (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act. The condition prescribed under the above cases (a), (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the Act have to be fulfilled before marking the true copies obtained under the Right to Information Act. However, the true copies of public documents certified by the designated Information Officer can be taken as certified copies of the public documents.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD 

Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3031 and 3048 of 2015

Decided On: 11.12.2015

 Datti Kameswari  Vs. Singam Rao Sarath Chandra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.

Print Page

Whether advocate can attest copy as true copy in absence of delegation of said power?

 Even otherwise from the perusal of the power of attorney of the Advocate, it will be revealed that there is no delegation of authority empowering the counsel to attest the copy of the petition as a true copy under his signature. It is well settled that the power of the agent is circumscribed within the framework of the authority given by the principal. In the absence of specific delegation as to the attestation of the copy to be a true copy under the signature of the authorised agent, the Advocate is not empowered to attest it. Consequently, there is no substance in this argument either.

 To sum up, the petition being not attested under the petitioner's own signature, the mandatory provision of Part 2 of Section 81(3) has not been complied with in the case before me and so the petition is liable to be dismissed in the terms of Section 86 of the Act.

Rajasthan High Court

Bhikha Bhai vs Lalshanker And Ors. on 10 February, 1978

Equivalent citations: AIR 1978 Raj 193, 1978 (11) WLN 45

Bench: M Joshi

Print Page

Basic concept of signed copy of arbitration award

The case debated on whether the copy of award duly certified to be true copy by the umpire and then signing the award could be considered as a true copy as required under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act (10 of 1940) - It was held that the document was an accurate and full reproduction of the original and was a copy of the same - Thus the document was a copy of the original and was a signed copy, as it was bearing the signature of the umpire

Supreme Court of India

Hindustan Construction Company ... vs Union Of India on 12 October, 1966

Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 526, 1967 SCR (1) 543

BENCH:
WANCHOO, K.N.
MITTER, G.K.

Print Page

What are duties of notary in respect of certifying copies of documents as true copies of original?

 Rule 10(1) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 prescribes that every notary shall charge a fees for certifying copies of documents as true copies of the original at the rate prescribed therein. Rule 11(9) of the said Rules provides that every notary shall grant a receipt for the fees and charges realised by him and maintain a register showing all the fees and charges realised for every single notarial act. Rule 12 of the said Rules prescribes for use of seal of notary. Rule 11(2) of the said Rules in terms provides that every notary shall maintain notarial register in prescribed Form No. 15. The prescribed form of the register provides for entry of every notarial act in the notarial register and taking of signature of the person concerned in the register and entry in respect of fees charged. It is, therefore, not correct to state, as stated by Mr. Sonavane, that no entry need be made in the notarial register in respect of the notarial act of certifying copy of document as true copy of the original. Even if one or two column of the said form is not applicable, entries must be made in the said register filling up remaining columns as are applicable and adapting the format accordingly. It is the responsibility of a notary to satisfy himself that the original document intended to be executed before him was executed by the person concerned and not by someone else in the name of a different person. It is the responsibility of the notary to satisfy himself about the identity of the execution of the original document by making all reasonable inquiries including insistence of identification of a member of the public by a legal practitioner known to the notary. Unless the executant is known to the notary personally, the notary must insist on written identification of the executant by an advocate in order to minimise the possibility of cheating by personification. Negligence of a notary in the discharge of his notarial functions may jeopardise the interest of third parties and public interest itself. If the work of comparison of copy of the document with the original and the prima facie scrutiny of authenticating the original involves labour for too little a fee, the person concerned need not opt to become a notary.

Bombay High Court

Prataprai Trumbaklal Mehta vs Jayant Nemchand Shah And Another on 14 June, 1991

Equivalent citations: AIR 1992 Bom 149, 1991 (4) BomCR 89

Bench: D Dhanuka

Print Page