S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12663/2010 Sunita Devi Vs. The Secretary and ors. Dated : 20.10.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. DK Bhardwaj, for the petitioner. *** By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has implored to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20th July, 2010 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, Bansoor (Alwar) did not allow the petitioner to exhibit the documents which were stated to have been true copy of the original documents. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the impugned order, it is noticed that the petitioner filed two documents which were the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat Shyampura dated 20th February, 2004 and 25th June, 2004. During the evidence, the petitioner endeavoured to exhibit these two documents, but was not allowed by the Court on the ground that these documents were not the certified copies under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3. Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act reads thus: “76.Certified copies of public documents.-Every public officer having the custody of a public -2- document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. Explanation.-Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section. 4. From the bare reading of the provisions of Section 76 of Indian Evidence Act, it is tangible that the true copies of any documents are not the certified copies of public documents. It requires for a Public Officer to give a certificate in the foot of the copy that it was the true copy of such document and part thereof. Both the documents did not bear the certificate on the foot of the documents, hence, the documents could not be treated as certified copies of the public documents. The impugned order rendered by the learned trial Court is found to be just and proper. The impugned order does not seem to be perverse nor is it found to be contrary to the law. -3- Hence, the writ petition fails and it being totally devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed in limine and the same stands dismissed accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg item No.17