Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to production and inspection of the original foreign documents relied upon by the prosecution during cross-examination of the complainant, in light of the requirements for proof of foreign public documents and the right to effective cross-examination.
Analysis: The foreign documents were received by the department through official inter-governmental channels, which lent them a strong presumption of genuineness, but did not dispense with the statutory requirements governing proof of foreign public documents. Section 78(6) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 contemplates proof by original or certified copy with appropriate certification, and Section 3 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 recognizes notarial acts of Indian diplomatic officers abroad. Since the documents formed the foundation of the prosecution case, denial of access to the originals could prejudice the defence and impair effective cross-examination. The request was limited to inspection of documents already relied upon and did not justify refusal merely on the ground that it might delay the trial.
Conclusion: The accused was entitled to production and inspection of the originals of the relied-upon foreign documents during cross-examination.