Friday, April 21, 2017

How to prove photo in evidence

*How to prove photo in evidence?*

 It is apropos to refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, in support of the view I have taken, in the case of Laxman Ganpati v. Anusayabai . The Division Bench in the said case was considering the proof of photo copy, negative as well as enlarged print and has considered the provisions as laid down under Sections 62 and 65 of the Evidence Act. It is held that it is only when the person who takes a photograph and develops it into a negative himself comes into the box and deposes to both those facts, that a negative becomes admissible in evidence. As far as the enlarged print is concerned, the position is still worse, for no point or enlargement can be admitted in evidence without its negative being produced and proved in the matter.

Bombay High Court

Ramdas Bhatu Chaudhary Since ... vs Anant Chunilal Kate on 27 July, 2006

*Citations: 2006 (6) MhLj 571,2007(1) ALLMR313*

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Course after plus 2

Oral argument is one of the most exciting parts of litigation

*Oral argument is one of the most exciting parts of litigation*, and only a few lawyers are really good at it. But even if you aren’t a naturally-talented presenter, you can still improve. The important thing is to get away from your outline and use a more “modular” approach to oral argument.

Many lawyers—especially those new to law practice—prepare for oral argument the same way, by creating an outline and rehearsing as they would for a speech. They may prepare for questions by talking through the issues with a colleague, but this does not usually result in effective oral argument. What it does result in is a stiff argument, awkward recovery after answering questions, and an ineffective presentation overall.

That’s because oral argument is so much more dynamic than an outline—even if you have a “cold” bench. In order to prepare for dynamic argument, you need a more dynamic approach than an outline and a few run-throughs.

*Preparing for oral argument takes a deep understanding of the law, the facts, and the arguments.* Then, you need to break up your argument into “modules.” You can organize your argument (not just outline it) around your modules, but then you must practice making your argument in and out of order. Only by doing this will you be prepared to field questions and deliver your argument with skill and nimbleness, instead of rigid adherence to an outline.

*Ditch the Outline*

An outline isn’t inherently good or bad, but it encourages rigid thinking. Lawyers who rely on an outline alone tend to get thrown off by questions, which often results in repetition and skipped issues.

*Worse, many lawyers also haul a binder (or several) full of cases, pleadings, exhibits, and briefs to the podium, which they try to rely on while delivering their arguments. I think this is because they rely on their stacks of paper in place of adequate preparation.*

Of course you can use an outline if you really want to—I do—but it is important to shed the rigid thinking and intellectual laziness that outline-as-preparation encourages.

*Practice Intense Preparation*

There are no tricks to good oral argument, and the single most important component of great oral argument is preparation. I realize it is one thing to say Prepare! and another to do it with a full caseload, but it is a lawyer’s duty to prepare adequately, if not better. You must find the time.

*You must know four things about your case for every argument:*

*1The facts.*
Know the facts of your case backward and forward. Make sure you know which are actually in the record, too.

*2The law*.
Although you probably researched the law at various points in the litigation, including when you wrote the brief, you should review at least the key cases before your argument, and learn them well enough to talk about the nuances without the case in front of you. The same goes for any statutes or rules involved, which you should know inside out.

You must also be able to state the rule you want the court to adopt and apply, whether it is a rule of existing law or a new one that you want the court to adopt. Enough judges have asked me about this that it has become one of my favorite questions to ask students when I judge moot court competitions—few are prepared with a rule. But if you want to win, you had better know how you want the court to do it.

*3Your argument.*
Make sure you can explain why your client should win. This ought to go without saying, but I have seen an astonishing number of attorneys who cannot seem to articulate a coherent reason why their client ought to win.

*Your job is to convince the court that your client ought to win, and give the court a legally-permissible route to that result.* Don’t forget the second part. You cannot win without it.

*4What you want.*
This should go without saying, too. You must be able to tell the court what you want it to do. By the way, as part of this, you should make sure the court can do what you want it to do. Your client won’t thank you for the time and expense of a motion hearing if the court doesn’t have the power to grant your motion.

*Organize and Practice Your Argument*

Here’s how I like to organize my argument. I write each issue I want to discuss or point I want to make on a separate index card (or piece of paper, but the idea is to keep it short—these are prompts, not parts of a script). Then, I take each index card and practice the argument around that topic or idea. Usually, the oral argument starts to organize itself as I do this because I generally refer to other cards as I go. As the argument begins to take shape, I start laying out the cards on the floor to sort them.

As I lay all the cards out on the floor (this works great for organizing the topics you want to discuss with a witness on direct examination, too), I put them in the order that makes the most sense. Group them into the two or three main topics you need to argue. Even if your argument is going to be complicated by necessity, group it into a few main topics, if you can.

*Now, turn those main topics into a roadmap.* Starting your argument with a concise roadmap is helpful for the court because the judge will know right away if she is likely to get an answer to her questions, or if she should just go ahead and ask them now because you aren’t likely to cover them.

Spreading out index cards on the floor works for me, but you could also do an outline if you prefer. I just think it works better to start with something more flexible and convert it to an outline as it starts to come together.

Whether you do an outline or not, you should also practice your argument as a single, cohesive unit. You might get a cold bench, after all. I usually run through my argument this way a few times, then set my index cards and outline aside and go for a walk. (Bring your dog, if you are preparing at home.)

With no prompts in front of you, go through your argument several more times from memory. Work through it without resorting to your outline or notes. This will force you to learn your argument much more thoroughly than if you are always relying on your notes.

*Practice your argument with non-lawyers, too.* If they look bored, you aren’t doing a very good job. Keeping a non-lawyer interested forces you to boil down the facts, issues, and arguments to their essentials. You can always go into the nitty-gritty (boring) details if you need to, but it’s generally better to get to the point—especially with judges.

*Commit Your Argument to Memory*

Outlines, binders full of reference material, and other paper and props are distractions, not performance aids. The best way to argue is from memory (although it won’t hurt to bring your index cards or outline with you, just in case—or just for show).

If you have followed my advice so far, you have essentially committed your argument to memory. Deep understanding of the facts and law will give you the ability to discuss the issues without an outline to guide you. Practicing your argument out of order helps dissociate each issue from your outline. Getting out of your office and walking as you practice will help you embed your argument in your brain. As you walk around, your brain will associate your argument with your surroundings, which will make it easier to remember your key points when you are under stress at the podium.

*Your goal is not to remember your argument word-for-word; that is counterproductive.* Your goal is to know what you want to say about a topic whether or not you are interrupted. If you are interrupted, you must be able to locate the question in your argument, then segue gracefully back into your argument after you answer. In other words, know what you want to say, and then cover at least the key points whether or not you are interrupted with questions.

If you have followed the steps above, you should have your argument sufficiently “memorized.”

*If You Can, Moot Your Argument*

Not every argument merits the time and expense of a moot session—or several. But if you can moot the issue, you will get invaluable information and feedback. If your “judges” do a good job, you will have a good idea of what you may hear from the bench. You will also get great feedback on the way you argue so that you can improve.

I’ve had the opportunity to conduct several moot sessions on both sides of the “bench,” and it has been well worth the effort in each case. Do it if you can.

*Last-Minute Prep On the Day of Your Argument*

Here is what works for me on the day of my argument, but what you do is not as important as having a routine that quiets your nerves and gives you one last refresher of the facts, law, and your argument.

I usually get dressed, then go walk the dog. (My hearings tend to be first thing in the morning.) While we walk, I run through my argument—out loud—two or three times (wear a Bluetooth headset if you don’t want to look crazy, and people will think you are just on the phone). I keep it up in the car on my way to court. I don’t have my index cards or outline out when I do this.

When I get to court (always at least fifteen minutes early), I sit down and jot down my main “talking points” on a legal pad, referring to my outline if I need to. When my case is called, that’s all I take to the podium. I don’t try to review cases or the facts at this point. If I don’t know them by the time I am sitting in the courtroom, I’m not going to learn anything in those few minutes before I stand up to argue.

*Preparation is key.* If you have done enough, you will be confident behind the podium, and you will rarely be surprised by what happens in the courtroom. Don’t half-ass your preparation; it is always better to be over-prepared.

*Originally published 2015-03-27. Last updated 2015-12-25.*

There are different types of evidences under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

There are different types of evidences under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These are mentioned below-
1) Oral Evidence
2) Documentary Evidence
3) Primary Evidence
4) Secondary Evidence
5) Real Evidence
6) Hearsay Evidence
7) Judicial Evidence
8) Non- Judicial Evidence
9) Direct Evidence
10) Indirect Evidence or Circumstantial Evidence

These are elaborated below-
1) Oral Evidence
Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act explains Oral Evidence. Oral Evidences are those evidences which are personally seen or heard by the witness giving them and not heard or told by some one else. All the statements which are permitted by the court or the court expects the witness to make such statements in his presence regarding the truth of the facts, are called as Oral Evidences.
Oral evidences must always be direct. An Evidence is direct when it establishes the main fact in issue.
2) Documentary Evidence
Documentary evidence is defined under section 3 of the Act. All those documents which are presented in the court for inspection regarding a case, such documents are known as documentary evidences.
3) Primary Evidence ___________________________________________
Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act defines Primary Evidence. Primary evidences are the most superior class of evidences. These are those evidences which are expected by the law and admissible and permissible at the first place. These are those evidences which in any possible condition gives the vital hint in a disputed fact and establishes through documentary evidence on the production of an original document by the court.
4) Secondary Evidences
Secondary evidence is defined under section 63 of the Act. These are those evidences which are entertained by the court in the absence of the Primary evidences. Therefore it is known as secondary evidences.
5) Real Evidences
Real evidences are those evidences which are real or material evidences.  Real evidence or proof of a fact is brought to the knowledge of the court by an inspection of a physical object rather than by deriving an information by a witness or a document.
6) Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence is the ones which the witness has neither personally seen nor heard, nor has he perceived through his senses, but are those which have come to his knowledge through some other person. These are the most weak category of evidences.
7) Judicial Evidence
Judicial evidences are those which are given before the magistrate in the court. For example-  a confession made by the accused before the magistrate in the court is an Judicial Evidence.
8) Non- Judicial Evidence
Any confession made by the accused outside the court and not in front of the magistrate but in the presence of some other person are termed as Non- Judicial evidences.
9) Direct Evidence ___________________________________________
Direct evidences are those evidences which establishes a fact. The best example of a direct evidence would be statement or confessions made by the witnesses.
10) Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial or indirect evidence are the ones which attempts to prove the facts in dispute by providing other facts. Circumstantial evidences are not definite proof. they only provide a general idea as to what occured at the  crime scene.

Friday, March 10, 2017

Friday, March 3, 2017

ആധാരം സ്വയം എഴുതി റജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യാൻ സർക്കാർ അനുമതി നൽകി

ആധാരം സ്വയം എഴുതി റജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യാൻ സർക്കാർ അനുമതി നൽകി എട്ട് മാസം ആയിട്ടും ഇത് വരെയായി കേരളത്തിൽ ആകെ 200 പേർ മാത്രമേ ഈ സൗകര്യം ഉപയോഗിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളൂ എന്ന വസ്തുത പുതിയതിനെ സ്വീകരിക്കാൻ ആളുകൾക്കുള്ള മടിയും യാഥാസ്ഥികമനോഭാവവും ആണു കാണിക്കുന്നത്. ആധാരം സ്വയം എഴുതുക എന്ന് വെച്ചാൽ പരമ്പാരഗത ആധാരമെഴുത്തുകാരെ പോലെ   പരത്തി എഴുതുകയൊന്നും വേണ്ട. കേരള റജിസ്ട്രേഷൻ വകുപ്പിന്റെ സൈറ്റിൽ 19 തരം ആധാരങ്ങളുടെ കോപ്പിയുണ്ട്. അത് പി.ഡി.എഫ്.ആയി  ഡൗൺലോഡ് ചെയ്ത് പ്രിന്റ് എടുത്ത് പ്രസക്തഭാഗങ്ങൾ പൂരിപ്പിക്കുക മാത്രമേ വേണ്ടൂ. അതുമായി റജിസ്ട്രാഫീസിൽ പോയി ആധാരം റജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യാം. 

പുരിപ്പിക്കാൻ അറിയില്ലെങ്കിൽ നാട്ടിൽ അറിയുന്ന ആരെക്കൊണ്ടെങ്കിലും പൂരിപ്പിച്ചാൽ മതി. ആധാരമെഴുത്തുകാർ തന്നെ വേണമെന്നില്ല.  ആധാരമെഴുത്തുകാരെ കൊണ്ട് പൂരിപ്പിക്കുകയാണെങ്കിൽ തന്നെ പൂരിപ്പിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള ഒരു ചെറിയ പ്രതിഫലം കൊടുത്താൽ മതി. പഴയത് പോലെ ആധാരത്തിൽ കാണിക്കുന്ന വിലയുടെ ശതമാനക്കണക്കിൽ പതിനായിരങ്ങൾ കൊടുക്കേണ്ടതില്ല. ഒരു ഫോം പൂരിപ്പിക്കാൻ എത്ര കൊടുക്കാമോ അത്രയേ വേണ്ടൂ. ആധാരമെഴുത്ത് എന്നത് ഒരു ഫോം പൂരിപ്പിക്കലായി ലഘൂകരിക്കപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുന്നു എന്ന വസ്തുത കേരള സമൂഹം ഇനിയും മനസ്സിലാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല എന്നത് ലജ്ജാകരമാണ്. ആളുകൾ കാലത്തിനൊപ്പം അപ്‌ഡേറ്റ് ആകാത്തത് നിരാശാജനകമാണ്.

ആധാരമെഴുത്തുകാരൻ ആർക്കും മനസ്സിലാകാത്ത തരത്തിൽ നീട്ടി വളച്ചു എഴുതുന്നതിനേക്കാളും ആധികാരികമായ എഴുത്ത് സർക്കാരിന്റെ റജിസ്ട്രേഷൻ വകുപ്പിന്റെ സൈറ്റിൽ ഉള്ള ഫോം പൂരിപ്പിക്കുന്നതാണ്.  എന്തിനാണു വെറുതെ ആധാരക്കൊള്ളയ്ക്ക് അരു നിൽക്കുന്നത്. ആധാരത്തിന്റെ ഫോം പൂരിപ്പിച്ചു കൊടുക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള ഒരു ന്യായമായ പ്രതിഫലം കൈപ്പറ്റിക്കൊണ്ട് പൂരിപ്പിച്ചുകൊടുക്കാനും ആധാരമെഴുത്തുകാരൻ എന്ന രാജകീയപ്രതാപം അട്ടത്ത് വയ്ക്കാനും ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട എഴുത്തുകാർ തയ്യാറാകണം. എല്ലാ രംഗത്തും കമ്പ്യൂട്ടറൈസെഷൻ എന്നത് കാലത്തിന്റെ അനിവാര്യതയാണു. ആർക്കും തൊഴിലോ പ്രതിഫലമോ ഇത് മൂലം നഷ്ടമാകുന്നില്ല. കൊള്ളയും അഴിമതിയും  ക്രമേണ ഇല്ലാതാകും എന്നേയുള്ളൂ.

ശരിക്ക് പറഞ്ഞാൽ ആധാരം എഴുതാൻ എഴുത്തുകൂലി മാത്രം വാങ്ങിയാൽ മതിയായിരുന്നു. എഴുത്ത് എന്ന ഒരു അധ്വാനം മാത്രമല്ലേ അവർ ചെയ്യുന്നുള്ളൂ. അതിനാണു പതിനായിരങ്ങളും ലക്ഷവും എഴുത്ത് കൂലി വാങ്ങിക്കൊണ്ടിരുന്നത്. ഇത് ജനങ്ങളുടെ അജ്ഞത മുതലെടുത്ത് നടത്തുന്ന ആധാരക്കൊള്ളയാണ്.  ആധാരങ്ങളുടെ മാതൃകാകോപ്പികൾ ഡൗൺലോഡ് ചെയ്ത് പ്രിന്റ് എടുക്കാനുള്ള ലിങ്ക് താഴെ കൊടുക്കുന്നു. ഈ പോസ്റ്റ് ഷെയർ ചെയ്ത് ജനങ്ങളെ ബോധവൽക്കരിക്കാൻ സുഹൃത്തുക്കളോട് അഭ്യർത്ഥിക്കുന്നു. ലിങ്കിൽ ക്ലിക്ക് ചെയ്താൽ തുറക്കുന്ന വെബ്‌പേജിൽ Download Model Documents എന്ന ലിങ്ക് ക്ലിക്ക് ചെയ്താൽ 19 ഫോമുകളുടെ ലിങ്ക് കാണാം. ആവശ്യമായതിന്റെ പ്രിന്റ് എടുത്താൽ മതി.

Monday, February 27, 2017



Syed Yakub v. K.S.


1964 SC 477

(Para 8)

What is an error apparent on record,

namely, whether there is an error

law, refusal to admit evidence,

findings on facts based on no

evidence; where a Tribunal

exercises jurisdiction in excess or

fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in

it and where jurisdiction is exercised

arbitrarily and illegally, like in

violation of principles of natural



Party’s name Citation Strength



Ratio laid down

Ramesh Thapar v.

State of Madras

AIR 1950 SC 124 Existence of alternative remedy is

no bar for invoking Article 32 or

Article 226 of the Constitution.

K.K. Kochunni v.

State of Madras

AIR 1959 SC 725

Para 8