This document discusses and summarizes 5 key cases related to principles for admitting exhibits and secondary evidence: 1. The Supreme Court held that merely marking an exhibit does not dispense with proving the document. 2. Electronically recorded conversations are admissible if relevant and the voice is identified, provided the recording's accuracy is proved and it is not altered. 3. Documents pass through three stages - filing, admission as evidence, and finally being held as proved or disproved after judicial review. 4. Objecting to a document's admissibility is best done at the evidence recording stage so the objecting party can cross-examine on it, otherwise their rights may be denied.

1. EXHIBIT
SR CITATION PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN
1. Supreme Court
in Sait
Taraji
Khimechand
VS. Yelamarti
Satvam
'The mere marking of an exhibit does
not dispense with the proof of
documents'
2. R.M Malkani
vs. State of
Maharastra ­
AIR 1973 SC
157
electronically recorded
conversation is admissible in
evidence, if the conversation is
relevant to the matter in issue and
the voice is identified and the
accuracy of the recorded conversation
is proved by eliminating the
possibility of erasure, addition or
manipulation. This Court further held
that a contemporaneous electronic
recording of a relevant conversation
is a relevant fact comparable to a
photograph of a relevant incident and
is admissible as evidence under
Section 8 of the Act. There is
therefore no doubt that such
electronic record can be received as
evidence
3 Sudir
Engineering
Company vs
Nitco Roadways
Ltd.,
Any document filed by either parly
passes through three stages before it
is held proved or disproved. These are
: First stage : when the documents arc
Filed by either party in the Court;
these documents though on file, do not
become part of the judicial record;
Second stage: when the documents are
tendered or produced m evidence by a
party and the Court admits the
documents in evidence. A .document
admitted in evidence becomes a part of
the judicial record of the case and
constitutes evidenee. Third stage: the
documents which are held 'proved, not
proved or disproved' when the Court is
called upon to apply its judicial mind
by reference to Section 3 of the
Evidence Act. Usually this stage
arrives the final hearing of the suit
or proceeding.
4 2009 (3)
G.L.H. 501 CIVIL LAWS ­ Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 ­ Or. 13, R. 4, R. 6 ­Production

2. M. R. SHAH,
J.
Ksl Realty
And
Infrastructur
al Industries
Limited
....Petitione
r
Versus
Surat
District
Cooperative
Spinning
Mills Limited
...Respondent
Special Civil
Application
No. 3042 of
2009
A petition
under Art.
227 of the
Constitution
of India for
quashing and
setting aside
the order
dated:
l8/02/2009
passed by the
Learned Judge
of the City
Civil Court,
Ahmedabad
below Exh.
262 in Civil
Suit No. 2780
of 2004.
With Civil
Application
No. 6131 of
2009 In
Special Civil
Application
No. 3042 of
2009
D/­
19.06.2009
Case
and Admission of Documents in the Suit
­ Defendant produced certain documents
in the Suit some of which were
objected to by the plaintiff ­ Those
documents which were objected to by
the plaintiff were given tentative
exhibit numbers subsequently keeping
the question of admissibility of these
documents open at the time of judgment
­ Held, the question with respect to
admissibility of such documents in
evidence is required to be decided at
the earliest, so that party who has
objected can know and lead the
evidence on such documents ­ If at the
time of judgment, Trial Court admits
the documents and gives final exhibit
numbers, the party who has objected
admissibility of such documents would
be deprived of his legal right to lead
evidence on these documents.
Be that it may, in view of the
statement of Shri Shah, learned
Advocate appearing on behalf of
respondent­defendant recorded herein
above this Court is not further
require to give/assign any further
reasons. However, this Court is of the
opinion that on the facts of the
present case the learned Judge has
committed error in relying upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal
(Supra). That was the case where the
objection with respect to
admissibility of the documents in
evidence was raised at the time of
recording the evidence and not after
the evidence was closed and it was at
the stage of leading evidence. In the
facts and circumstances of the case,
when the evidence was going on and
objection was taken with respect to
admissibility of documents in evidence
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
that in such a case the best course to
be adopted is to give tentative
exhibit numbers to documents which is
objected to and to keep the question
with respect to admissibility of the
evidence open at the stage of final

3. Referred
1. Bipin
Shantilal
Panchal v.
State of
Gujarat and
another AIR
2001 SC
1158=2001(2)
GLH 545,
Relied (Para
3)
hearing. The idea behind the same
seems to be that if such a course is
adopted in that case, when the
evidence is recorded and on objection
being taken with respect to
admissibility of the documents in
evidence and tentative exhibit number
is given, keeping the question with
respect to admissibility of said
documents in evidence open, in that
case the party who has objected to
give the exhibit numbers and/or
against the admissibility of documents
in evidence can subject to his
objection can cross examine the
witnesses on the said documents which
arc given tentative exhibit numbers.
Considering the facts stated herein
above in the present case, if the
tentative exhibit numbers are given
after recording all the evidence and
at the time of arguments and the
question with respect to admissibility
of the evidence is required to be
considered at the time of judgment
then certainly petitioner­plaintiff
would be deprived of his right to lead
the evidence on those documents.
Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bipin
Shantilal Panchal (supra) can be
applied in a case where the objection
with respect to admissibility of the
documents in evidence is taken at the
time of recording the evidence and
cannot be applied in a case where the
evidence is already closed and it is
at the stage of arguments. If at the
stage of argument and after the
evidence is closed the documents for
which the objection is raised with
respect to the admissibility of
evidence, are given tentative exhibit
numbers and the question with respect
to admissibility of such document in
evidence is left open at the time of
judgment in that case, if ultimately,
at the time of pronouncement of the
judgment the learned trial Court takes
the view that such documents are
admissible in evidence and relying

4. upon the said documents, if judgment
is pronounced in that case, party who
has objected to admissibility of such
documents in evidence would be
deprived of his right to lead the
evidence on such documents, which is
not permissible. In such a case, the
question with respect to admissibility
of such documents in evidence is
required to be considered at the
earliest so that party who has
objected can know and if ultimately
any decision is taken that such
documents are admissible in evidence
he can lead the evidence on such
documents and in that case no
injustice will be caused to him. Under
the circumstances, the learned trial
Court has committed an error in
relying upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. (Para 6)
5 1984 G.L.H
831
S. B.
MAJMUDAR AND
D. C.
GHEEWALA, JJ.
Patel
Maganbhai
Bapujibhai
and
others .
.Appellants
Versus
Patel
Ishwarbhai
Motibhai and
others .
.Respondents
First Appeal
No. 637 of
1981 (with
F.A. No. 1189
of 1981)
* Only
portion
approved for
reporting by
High Court is
reported
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872­ Ss.
63(1) and 65 ­ Secondary evidence ­
Objection as to tendering of secondary
evidence not taken in trial Court by
aggrieved party ­ The said party is
deemed to have waived its right to
object to tendering of such evidence.
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ­ Ss.
63(1) and 4 ­ Public document ­
Statement recorded by police officer
in course of investigation is not
public document ­ Certified copy
thereof cannot be admitted in evidence
under S. 63(1) of the Evidence Act,
A statement recorded by the police
officer in the course of investigation
is not a public document within the
meaning of S. 74 of the Evidence Act.
Once conclusion is reached that ex.
37/7 is not a public document, its
certified copy cannot go in as
secondary evidence under Section 63(1)
of the Evidence Act.
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ­ Sub­
sections (2) and (3) of S. 63 ­
Secondary evidence ­ Admissibility ­ A
hand­written copy of copy issued by
Officer concerned ­ Absence of
statement of its being copy made from

5. here.
**Against
decision of
2nd Jt. Civil
Judge (S.D.),
Nadiad, in
Special Civil
Suit No. 272
of 1976.
original by mechanical process or
compared with such copy ­ Document not
admissible either under sub­section
(2) or (3) of S. 63 of the Act.
Where the document tendered in
evidence was a hand­written copy of
the original issued as true copy under
the signature of the concerned
officer, the same would not be
admissible in evidence under Section
63 (2) when it was not stated that it
was a copy made from the original by
mechanical process or copy compared
with such copy. In such a case, sub­
section (3) of Section 63 also could
not be pressed into service for
admission of the copy in question as
secondary evidence of the original. (
Para 17 )
6. 2001 (3) GLR
2024 SC; 2001
AIR 1158 SC;
2001 (2) GLH
545 SC; 2001
(3) GCD 1796
SC; 2001 (3)
SCC 1
SUPREME COURT
Before the
Hon'ble MR K
T THOMAS,J ,
the Hon'ble
MR R P
SETHI,J and
the Hon'ble
MR B N
AGRAWAL,J
(A) Constitution of India, 1950 ­
Art. 21 ­ Speedy Trial ­ Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (II of 1974) ­
Sec. 309 ­ Evidence Act, 1872 (I of
1872) ­ Sec. 136 ­ Objection regarding
admissibility of oral or documentary
evidence ­ Present practice of
deciding on objection, passing an
order and postponing trial to enable a
party to move higher Court ­ Practice
leads to delay ­ Instead, trial Court
to make a note of objection and mark
the objected document tentatively as
an exhibit (or record the objected
part of oral evidence) and decide the
objection at final stage ­ Trial
Courts throughout the country directed
to follow the practice.
It is an archaic practice that during
the evidence collecting stage,
whenever any objection is raised

6. BIPIN
SHANTILAL
PANCHAL vs.
STATE OF
GUJARAT AND
ANR.
No : Misc.
Criminal
Petition No.
862
Year : 2001
Decided
on :
22/2/2001
regarding admissibility of any
material in evidence the Court does
not proceed further without passing
order on such objection. But the fall
out of the above practice is this :
Suppose the trial Court, in a case,
upholds a particular objection and
excludes the material from being
admitted in evidence and then proceeds
with the trial and disposes of the
case finally. If the appellate or
revisional Court, when the same
question is re­canvassed, could take a
different view on the admissibility of
that material in such cases the
appellate Court would be deprived of
the benefit of that evidence, because
that was not put on record by the
trial Court. In such a situation, the
higher Court may have to send the case
back to the trial Court for recording
that evidence and then to dispose of
the case afresh. Why should the trial
prolong like that unnecessarily on
account of practices created by
ourselves? Such practices, when
realised through the course of long
period to be hindrances which impede
steady and swift progress of trial
proceedings, must be recast or
remoulded to give way for better
substitutes which would help
acceleration of trial proceedings.
(Para 13)
When so recast, the practice which can

7. be a better substitute is this :
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. In the
Court's view there is no illegality in
adopting such a course. (However, the
Court makes it 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.) (Para 14; See
also Para 15)