In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court determined that a photostat copy of an unregistered agreement to sell cannot be accepted as secondary evidence in a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, solely based on the accused’s claim regarding the signature on the document. Justice S Vishwajith Shetty, presiding over a single-judge bench, dismissed a petition filed by Bhuvaneshwari, challenging the trial court’s decision to deny permission to mark the document.
The crux of the argument revolved around whether insufficiently stamped documents could be admitted in criminal proceedings, notwithstanding objections raised by the complainant. Bhuvaneshwari contended that even if objections were raised, the document could have been marked subject to consideration at the final stage. However, the bench emphasized that secondary evidence must be authenticated by a factual foundation, necessitating an application before the court to lay down the necessary groundwork for admission.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that parties must exhaust all avenues to procure primary evidence, and only if such evidence is unattainable can secondary evidence be considered admissible. This ruling underscores the importance of establishing a factual basis for admitting secondary evidence, highlighting the need for due process and adherence to legal principles in trial proceedings.
The Karnataka High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards required for the admission of evidence in legal proceedings, safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring fair trial practices.
