text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
A report in a newspapers is only hearsay evidence. Ratio |
A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. Ratio |
The presumption of genuineness attached under section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspapers report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. Ratio |
It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspapers is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. Ratio |
The accused should have therefore produced the persons in whose presence the seizure of the stolen money from appellant No. 2 's house at Mangalore was effected or examined the press correspondents in proof of the truth of the contents of the news item. Ratio |
The question as to the admissibility of 736 newspaper reports has been dealt with by this Court in Samant N. Balakrishna vs George Fernandez & Ors. Ratio |
,[1969] 3 SCR 603. Ratio |
There the question arose whether Shri George Fernandez, the successful candidate returned to Parliament from the Bombay South Parliamentary Constituency had delivered a speech at Shivaji Park attributed to him as reported in the Maratha, a widely circulated Marathi newspaper in Bombay, and it was said: "A newspaper rep... |
It is at best a second hand secondary evidence. Ratio |
It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. Ratio |
In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Ratio |
Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible. Ratio |
" We need not burden the judgment with many citations. Ratio |
There is nothing on record to substantiate the facts as reported in the newspapers showing recovery of the stolen amount from the residence of appellant No. 2 at Mangalore. Ratio |
We have therefore no reason to discard the testimony of PW 50 and the seizure witnesses which go to establish that the amount in question was actually recovered at Madras on the 29th and the 30th as alleged. Ratio |
As to the second, much emphasis was laid on the statement made by PW 9 Govindaraj showing that the accused Laxmi Raj Shetty was taken into custody at the Railway Station on the 27th when he arrived by the West Coast Express. Ratio |
It was submitted that the admission of the prosecution 's own witness PW 9 about the arrest of the accused on the 27th was a serious infirmity which shows that the prosecution case about the alleged recoveries was concocted and untrue. Ratio |
We have gone through the evidence of PW 9 with care. Ratio |
It cannot be forgotten that this witness and the accused were appointed together as Probationary Clerks and obviously he is trying to help the accused. Ratio |
We are satisfied that the Courts below were justified in not placing any credence on the statement made by this accused. Ratio |
It is pertinent to mention that the alleged statement has been brought out during the cross examination of this witness by learned counsel appearing for appellant No. 2. Ratio |
It would certainly have been better for the Public Prosecutor to have the witness declared hostile with a view to cross examine him and also called witnesses from the Bank to contradict him. Ratio |
This was unfortu 737 nately not done but that would not have the effect of destroying the entire prosecution case having regard to the fact that the substantial portion of the stolen amount has been recovered from both the accused. Ratio |
It is not disputed that the money recovered belongs to the Bank. Ratio |
It is not suggested that such a large amount as Rs.12,32,000 bearing the seal of the Bank would have been planted on the accused. Ratio |
In the premises, we are satisfied that the finding of guilt reached by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court after a proper and careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances appearing does not warrant any interference. Ratio |
In the fact and circumstances of this particular case, we direct that the sentence of death passed on appellant No. 1 Laxmi Raj Shetty be commuted to one of imprisonment for life. Ratio |
The evidence does not clearly indicate the exact manner in which the murder was committed. Ratio |
It is noteworthy that appellant No. 1 had not taken with him any weapon for assaulting the deceased but used two stitchers lying in the Bank premises, indicating that the murder was not pre planned. Ratio |
Looking to the nature of the weapon used, if seems to us that the accused acted under a momentary impulse. Ratio |
In the circumstances, we direct that the death sentence passed on appellant No. 1 should be converted into one for life imprisonment. Ratio |
Subject to this modification, the appeal fails and is dismissed. RPC |
The judgment and sentences passed on the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as affirmed by the High Court in appeal, are upheld being appropriate. RPC |
lection Appeal No. 232 (NCE) of 1987. FAC |
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.12.1986 of the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 1985. FAC |
PG NO 1066 Appellant in person. FAC |
A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents. FAC |
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. FAC |
The appellant is a person residing at Pune in the State of Maharashtra. FAC |
A bye election was proposed to be held on the 2nd February, 1986 to fill a seat in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly which had become vacant on account of the death of the sitting member who was representing 263 Jaoli Legislative Assembly constituency in Satara district in the State of Maharashtra. FAC |
The last date for making nominations at the said election was the 10th January, 1986 and the scrutiny of nomination papers was fixed to take place on January 11, 1986. FAC |
The appellant filed his nomination paper on January 9, 1986. FAC |
Since he was not registered as an elector in the Jaoli constituency but was an elector of the Shivaji Nagar Assembly constituency in Pune, a certified copy of the relevant entry in the electoral roll of the Shivaji Nagar constituency in which his name appeared had to be filed along with his nomination paper or had to b... |
Accordingly the appellant applied to the Tahsildar, Pune city (who was also the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, Shivajinagar Assembly constituency) who was the custodian of the electoral roll in force of that constituency to furnish him with a certified copy of the entry pertaining to him in the electoral rol... |
In that application he specifically mentioned that he required the certified copy for the purpose of producing it before the Returning Officer of the Jaoli constituency for enabling him to file his nomination paper. FAC |
The certified copy was made ready on 8th January, 1986 and delivered to the appellant on the same day by the Tahsildar, Pune city (Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, Shivajinagar Assembly constituency). FAC |
The certified copy was in Marathi language. FAC |
The material part of the English translation of the said certified copy read thus: "247.Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency List of Voters 1984 Name of village: Hutatma Rajguru Health Camp. FAC |
PG NO 1067 Taluka Pune City Distt.Pune Mahanagar Palika Part No./Polling Centre Ward No. 9 No 47 Sl.House No. Name of the voter M/F Approximate No. with the name of Age on father mother or 1.1.84 husband.Wadar Kunekar Jagannath M 35 Housing Ramchandra Society Block No. 1 Latest date of publication 31.1.1984 Sd/ Elector... |
Copying Applied on 6.1.1986 Fee Ready on 8.1.1986 delivered on 8.1.1986 Copied by kale. FAC |
" After obtaining the above said copy on January 8, 1986 the appellant filed his nomination paper as stated above on the next day, i.e. on 9th January, 1986 and along with his nomination paper he produced the certified copy obtained by him as required by sub section (5) of section 33 of the 1951 Act. FAC |
On seeing the said certified copy the Returning Officer of Jaoli constituency told the appellant that since it had been noted in the certified copy that the latest day of publication of the electoral roll in which the name of the appellant was appearing was 31st January, 1984 he had to bring another certified copy as t... |
The Tahsildar told him that the certified copy would be ready by 4.30 in the afternoon. FAC |
Ultimately the appellant was able to get that copy at 5 P.M. on 10th January, 1986. FAC |
The earliest bus available to the appellant to leave Pune for going to the place where the Returning PG NO 1068 Officer was taking up the work of scrutiny of nomination papers was to start at 9 A.M. on 11th January, 1986. FAC |
The appellant reached the office of the Returning Officer at about 1 P.M. in the afternoon on 11th January, 1986, i e., the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers and produced the second certified copy obtained by him before the Returning Officer. FAC |
The second certified copy was also in the Marathi language. FAC |
The English translation of the material part of the second certified copy reads thus: "247.Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency List of Voters 1984 Name of village: Hutatma Rajguru Health Camp.Taluka Pune City Distt.Pune Mahanagar Palika Part No./Polling Centre Ward No. 9 No. 47 Sl.House No. Name of the voter M/F Approxi... |
Assembly Constituency. FAC |
Copying Applied on 10 1 86 Paper Ready on 10 1 86 delivered on 10 1 86 Copied by kale. FAC |
PG NO 1069 TRUE COPY Sd/ Tehsildar Poona City Asstt. FAC |
Electoral Registration Officer Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency Tal Poona City. FAC |
Sd/ 10.1.86" FAC |
It is stated by the Returning Officer that before the appellant appeared before him on 11th January, 1986 he had already passed an order rejecting the nomination paper of the appellant on the ground of non compliance with the provisions of sub section (5) of section 33 and sub section (7) of the section 36 of the 1951 ... |
The English translation of the order (which was in the Marathi language) passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the appellant is as follows: "I have examined this nomination paper in accordance with section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and my decision is as follows: In his... |
As evidence thereof he has submitted a certified relevant extract from the said electoral roll published on the date 31.1.1984. FAC |
Under the provisions of Sections 33(5) and 36(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 it was essential for him to submit either the latest electoral roll (in force as on the date 31.1.85) or the necessary part of the roll or a certified relevant extract thereof Shri Nunekar was given instructions to that effec... |
However, the said requirement was not complied with even till the time of the scrutiny was over, nor did he remain present at the time of the scrutiny. FAC |
The said nomination paper is therefore rejected. FAC |
PG NO 1070 Sd/ Returning Officer 263, Jaoli, Vidhan Sabha Constituency. FAC |
(Medha) Dated: 11 1 1986" (This translation is done by the Chief Translator at the High Court.) FAC |
Aggrieved by the order rejecting his nomination paper the appellant requested the Returning Officer to review his order since he had produced another certified copy in which the latest date of publication had been shown as 29.1.1985. FAC |
The Returning Officer declined to review his order stating that he had no power of review and thereafter published the final list of candidates containing the names of four condidates who had, according to him, filed valid nomination papers. FAC |
The appellant 's name was not included in the said final list as his nomination paper had been rejected. FAC |
Thereafter the election was held and respondent No. 1 was declared elected. FAC |
After the declaration of the result the appellant filed Election Petition No. 1 of 1986 on the file of the High Court of Bombay calling in question the election of the respondent No. 1, alleging that the Returning Officer had improperly rejected the nomination paper filed by him and therefore the election of respondent... |
Respondents No. 1 to 4 in the election petition were the four other candidates who had filed nomination papers at the election and respondent No 5 was the Returning Officer. FAC |
Respondents No. 1 and 5 contested the election Petition by filing separate written statements. FAC |
They pleaded inter alia that since the certified copy of the relevant entry of the electoral roll of the Shivajinagar constituency in which the name of the appellant appeared was not one prepared from the current electoral roll the Returning Officer had rightly rejected the nomination paper of the appellant and there w... |
At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge of the High Court who tried the election petition dismissed the election petition filed by the appellant holding that he had not complied with section 33(5) of the 1951 Act as the certified copy produced by him on the 9th January, 1986 was not a certified copy of the el... |
Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judge of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal under section 116A of the 1951 Act. FAC |
There is no dispute that a candidate whose name is found in the electoral roll of a constituency other than the constituency from which he is seeking election should produce a certified copy of the electoral of the constituency in force in which his name appears or the part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant e... |
That is the mandatory of sub section (5) of section 33 of the 1951 Act. Ratio |
Sub section (2) of section 36 of the 1951 Act provides that the Returning Officer shall examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary inquiry if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nominati... |
One of the grounds mentioned in that sub section is that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of section 33 which includes the provisions contained in sub section (5) thereof. Ratio |
Sub section (7) of section 86 provides that for the purpose of that section, a certified copy of an entry in the electoral roll for the time being in force of a constituency shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the person referred to in that entry is an elector for that constituency, unless it is proved that h... |
Sections 14 to 25A of the 1950 Act, which are in Part III thereof, provide for the preparation, revision and maintenance of electoral rolls for assembly constituencies. STA |
Section 15 of the 1950 Act provides that for every constituency there shall be an electoral roll which shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the 1950 Act under the superintendence, direction and control of the Election Commission. STA |
A person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll as provided by section 16 of the 1950 Act if he is not a citizen of India, or is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court or is for the time being disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practice... |
The name of any person who becomes so disqualified after registration is liable to be forthwith struck off the electoral roll in which it is included. Ratio |
If the name of any person is struck off the electoral roll of a constituency by reason of a disqualification under clause (c) of sub section (1) of PG NO 1072 section 16 of the 1950 Act it shall forthwith be reinstated in that roll if such disqualification is, during the period such roll is in force, removed under any ... |
Subject to the provisions of Part III of the 1950 Act every person who is not less that 21 years of age on the qualifying date and is ordinarily resident in a constituency is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that constituency. Ratio |
The expression `qualifying date ' is defined in clause (b) of section 14 of the 1950 Act as the first day of January of the year in which the electoral roll is prepared or revised. Ratio |
Sections 21 to 23 of the 1950 Act provide for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls, correction of entries in electoral rolls and inclusion of names in electoral rolls. Ratio |
The electoral roll for each constituency has to he prepared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and shall come into force immediately upon its final publication in accordance with the rules made under the 1950 Act. Ratio |
The said electoral roll shall unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission for reasons to be recorded in writing, be revised in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date before each general election of the House of People or to the Legislative Assembly of a State; and before each bye election to... |
the validity or continued operation of the said electoral roll shall not thereby be affected. Ratio |
The Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit. Ratio |
These provisions relating to the preparation and revision of electoral rolls are contained in section 21 of the 1950 Act. Ratio |
It is not necessary to refer in detail for purposes of this case to section 22 of the 1950 Act which deals with the correction of entries in electoral rolls and the provisions contained in section 23 of the 1950 regarding the procedure to be followed if any person whose name is not included in the electoral roll of a c... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.