The document discusses two legal cases related to newspaper reports and copies of documents as evidence. The first case establishes that newspaper reports alone are hearsay evidence and not direct evidence, and must be properly proved according to evidence law to be admissible. The second case held that copies of a document can only be permitted as secondary evidence if the loss or destruction of the original document is established.
The document discusses two legal cases related to newspaper reports and copies of documents as evidence. The first case establishes that newspaper reports alone are hearsay evidence and not direct evidence, and must be properly proved according to evidence law to be admissible. The second case held that copies of a document can only be permitted as secondary evidence if the loss or destruction of the original document is established.
The document discusses two legal cases related to newspaper reports and copies of documents as evidence. The first case establishes that newspaper reports alone are hearsay evidence and not direct evidence, and must be properly proved according to evidence law to be admissible. The second case held that copies of a document can only be permitted as secondary evidence if the loss or destruction of the original document is established.
MANU/SC/0417/1994MANU/SC/0417/1994 : AIR 1994 SC 1733 that:
"Newspaper reports by themselves are not evidence of the contents thereof.
Those reports are only hearsay evidence. These have to be proved and the manner of proving a newspaper report is well settled. Newspaper, is at the best secondary evidence of its contents and is not admissible in evidence without proper proof of the contents under the Evidence Act."
The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. N. Swaminathan and
Ors. MANU/TN/1565/2002 : 2002 4 LW 147 has held that only in the case where the loss of document or destruction thereof was established, copies of a document can be permitted to be marked by way of secondary evidence.