Ensure Certified Copies Of Judgements Are Issued As Per Section 76 Evidence Act : Supreme Court To HC

The 'Skin-to-skin' judgement passed by the Supreme Court yesterday had set aside impugned judgements of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench). A three-judge Bench of Justices U.U.Lalit, S.Ravindra Bhat and Bela.M.Trivedi has held that 'skin-to-skin' touch is not a requirement to constitute an offence of sexual assault under S.7 of the POCSO Act. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Bela Trivedi, makes a crucial observation about the manner in which certified copies of judgement be uploaded. The judgement expresses its surprise that the Registry of High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, has certified the copy of the impugned judgment by affixing the stamp on the back side of every page of the judgment which is blank. It further notes that the said copy of the judgment appears to have been downloaded from the website and, therefore, does not bear even the signature or the name of the concerned judge at the end of the judgment. It further notes that while it is a written statement at the foot of the judgement that the said copy is a true copy of the judgment as contemplated in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act is also missing. Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that in case of certified copies of public documents the public officer having the custody of the public document shall provide a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof. The judgement further makes notes of the perils of not following the stipulation of Section 76: "Such a practice, if followed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, may allow the miscreants to manipulate or commit mischief in the judicial orders which are used as the public documents having great significance in the judicial proceedings." The judgment has directed the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court, to look into the matter and ensure that proper procedure for preparing the certified copies of the judgments/orders of the Court in accordance with law is followed. "It is very surprising to note that the Registry of High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, has certified the copy of the impugned judgment by affixing the stamp on the back side of every page of the judgment which is blank. The said copy of the judgment appears to have been downloaded from the website and, therefore, does not bear even the signature or the name of the concerned judge at the end of the judgment. The certificate that the said copy is a true copy of the judgment, is also not written at the foot of the judgment as contemplated in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such a practice, if followed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, may allow the miscreants to manipulate or commit mischief in the judicial orders which are used as the public documents having great significance in the judicial proceedings. The Registrar General of the Bombay High Court, therefore, is directed to look into the matter and ensure that proper procedure for preparing the certified copies of the judgments/orders of the Court in accordance with law is followed" Interestingly, in 2016 a Single judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/S.Spectrum Power Generation vs Mr.M.Kishna Rao had refused to interfere with the decision of the trial court raising an objection over the certified copies issued by the High Court which did not contain the certification as required by Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, it held that the copy of the order passed by the High Court containing no seal or certification as duly required by Section 76 of the Act cannot be called a certified copy. It had observed: "Unless there is a seal or certification as duly required under Section 76 of the Act, when it is not called a certified copy and even the High Court Rules in no way exempt from application of the said Section for the High Court to issue a certified copy, it is the duty of the registry of the High Court to take care in certifying in compliance with Section 76 of the Act. Thus, to the extent of return of the memo by the trial court to receive the documents as not duly certified as contemplated by Section 76 of the Act, there is nothing to interfere." Case Title : Attorney General for India versus Satish and anotherCoram : Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela TrivediCitation : LL 2021 SC 656Click here to read/download the judgment

Ensure Certified Copies Of Judgements Are Issued As Per Section 76 Evidence Act : Supreme Court To HC

Sneha Rao

Tags