Court Can't Refuse To Receive A Document In Evidence Simply Because It Is 'Weak', 'Xerox' Or Allegedly 'Fabricated': Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently held that the Trial Court’s order to not receive certain documents on record by simply stating that they are a photostat or are alleged by the prosecution to be weak or fabricated, is against the principles of justice.

“The truth or otherwise of the contents of these documents is a matter that should be decided in the trial and not at the threshold of receiving documents…" Justice Dr VRK Krupa Sagar observed.

The bench was hearing a Criminal Petition filed by the accused, questioning the refusal of Magistrate to receive eight documents as evidence.

The complainant in its complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act had alleged that the accused had issued cheques for borrowed money and those were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.

The accused sought permission of Magistrate to receive eight documents to substantiate his defense. The complainant objected to it stating that these documents are fabricated and do not bear signatures of the complainant and some documents are photostat copies. Furthermore, the accused is filing these documents at a belated stage to delay the proceedings.

The Trial Court passed the impugned order that three documents are only photostat copies of letters and cannot be marked. The two books which the accused intended to file were refused to be received on ground that they did not bear signatures of the complainant. Furthermore, other documents were not accepted as those were filed at a belated stage.

The High Court said that the trial court has taken an incorrect approach on three grounds. First, simply because a document is a photostat copy that itself is no ground to refuse to receive the document as Indian Evidence Act provides for primary and secondary evidence. Second, simply because a piece of document is very weak/contended to be fabricated it cannot be a ground to refuse to receive documents.

Court said it is always within power of trial Court to decide whether such documents would really prove a fact or not. Moreover, complainant holds full liberty to speak his version of the case when those documents are brought on record. Third, the documents could be taken on record as the trial had not come to an end.

In the above circumstances, the Court reasoned that the trial Court’s refusal to receive documents needs correction. Thus, the Criminal Petition was allowed.

Cause Title: A.KAMESWARA RAO Versus STATE OF AP

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment