The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad rejected a criminal application challenging the admission of a videography CD as documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872, subject to Section 25 restrictions.
Application objecting to the taking of C.D. of videography in evidence is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Cri.Appln.No.681/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.681 OF 2012
Sitaram s/o Anandrao Tambolkar ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT
Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the applicant Shri N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondent
CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 14th March, 2012.
PER COURT :
2
Cri.Appln.No.681/2012
P.W.3 Mohd. Pathan, panch witness for proving the memorandum panchanama under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and he did not state anything about recording of videography at the time of the discovery made following the memorandum panchanama under Section 27 of the said Act. It is for this reason, Mr. Patil, learned Advocate for the applicant/ accused submits, the production of the C.D. of videography in evidence ought not to have been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 20/1/2012 in Sessions Case No.89/2010.
3
Cri.Appln.No.681/2012
on the basis of these observations, rejected the application objecting to the taking of C.D. of videography in evidence with a rider that the viewing of the C.D. is subject to the provisions of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 strictly. Order of the learned Sessions Judge reveals no illegality or perversity. There is no abuse of the process of law in passing the impugned order. Hence, the Criminal Application is rejected.
fmp/cri681.12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the admissibility of videography CD as documentary evidence under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was correctly upheld subject to Section 25 restrictions.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Sitaram s/o Anandrao Tambolkar
The State of Maharashtra
U.D. Salvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
