Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the judge or magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. There is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, it is made clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further

Citation

CDJ 2001 SC 119

AIR 2001 SC 1158

Head note

Exhibition of documents - Objection with regard to admissibility of documents at trial stage - Delay occurred at trial court for seven years over the admissibility of documents and admissibility of evidence - Accused remained in jail for seven years on this account - To eliminate the jail Supreme Court has remodellied the procedure as under :- (i) Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the judge or magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. There is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, it is made clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.) (ii) The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is re-canvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. [Paras 14 and 15]

COMPARATIVE CITATIONS:
2001 (134) ELT 611, 2001 (3) SCC 1, 2001 AIR(SC) 1158, 2001 CrLJ 1254, 2007 (2) SCR 29, 2001 (3) JT 120, 2001 (2) Scale 167, 2001 (2) Supreme 65, 2001 (2) SLT 311, 2001 (1) SCJ 460, 2001 (3) SRJ 437, 2001 SCC(Cr) 417, 2001 (1) Crimes 288, 2001 (1) CCR 278, 2001 (1) RecentCR 859, 2001 (1) JCC 269, 2001 (2) AD(SC) 305, 2001 ALL MR (CRI) 452

#mod
#markingofdocument