The Delhi High Court has held that a document received as a
WhatsApp forward does not even qualify as a document in terms of
the Evidence Act, 1872, if neither the original nor the copy of the
original has been produced.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva made the above observation while
dismissing a petition filed by the National Lawyers Campaign for
Judicial Transparency and Reforms and others seeking a direction to
the State of Arunachal Pradesh, its police, Delhi Police, West
Bengal Police and the Central Bureau of Investigation to register
an FIR based on the allegations contained in the alleged suicide
note of its late Chief Minister Kalikho Pul.
The alleged document, claimed in the petition to be a suicide
note, is a typed copy of an English translation of a document
stated to be in Hindi.
The court asked the petitioners as to what is the source of the
alleged information, based on which the petition has been filed.
The petitioners stated that the source of information is
information circulated and received on social media WhatsApp
platform. Neither was the name of the sender of the alleged
WhatsApp post stated nor was it stated as to which of the
petitioners received the WhatsApp post.
The petitioners’ submitted that in terms of Section 154 of the
Code Criminal Procedure, 1973, any information, which is provided
to the police, is sufficient to set the criminal process into
motion.
Rejecting the submission, the court held: “I am unable to accept
this contention, in as much as, in the present case, the
petitioners very candidly admit that they are not privy to any
information. What they believe to be information is a post
circulated on WhatsApp platform or an alleged translation in a
website. The alleged information is not claimed to be true to their
knowledge. It is not even stated in the petition as to how the
petitioners have formed a reasonable belief that the alleged post
or the translation could be true or have any basis”.
“Annexure – A does not even qualify as a document in terms of
the Evidence Act, 1872, in as much as, neither the original nor the
copy of the original has been produced. It is an admitted position
that the petitioners have not seen original and have had no
occasion to even compare Annexure – A with the original.”
The court dismissed the writ petition with cost of Rs. 25,000 on
each of the petitioners, since the petitioners had admittedly filed
the petition without verifying or affirming any fact and without
the formation of even a belief that what is stated in the petition
has any iota of truth behind it.
Read Judgment Here
whatapp-forward-not-document-under-evidence-act
Source: LiveLaw
The Delhi High Court has held that a document received as a
WhatsApp forward does not even qualify as a document in terms of
the Evidence Act, 1872, if neither the original nor the copy of the
original has been produced.
Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva made the above observation while
dismissing a petition filed by the National Lawyers Campaign for
Judicial Transparency and Reforms and others seeking a direction to
the State of Arunachal Pradesh, its police, Delhi Police, West
Bengal Police and the Central Bureau of Investigation to register
an FIR based on the allegations contained in the alleged suicide
note of its late Chief Minister Kalikho Pul.
The alleged document, claimed in the petition to be a suicide
note, is a typed copy of an English translation of a document
stated to be in Hindi.
The court asked the petitioners as to what is the source of the
alleged information, based on which the petition has been filed.
The petitioners stated that the source of information is
information circulated and received on social media WhatsApp
platform. Neither was the name of the sender of the alleged
WhatsApp post stated nor was it stated as to which of the
petitioners received the WhatsApp post.
The petitioners’ submitted that in terms of Section 154 of the
Code Criminal Procedure, 1973, any information, which is provided
to the police, is sufficient to set the criminal process into
motion.
Rejecting the submission, the court held: “I am unable to accept
this contention, in as much as, in the present case, the
petitioners very candidly admit that they are not privy to any
information. What they believe to be information is a post
circulated on WhatsApp platform or an alleged translation in a
website. The alleged information is not claimed to be true to their
knowledge. It is not even stated in the petition as to how the
petitioners have formed a reasonable belief that the alleged post
or the translation could be true or have any basis”.
“Annexure – A does not even qualify as a document in terms of
the Evidence Act, 1872, in as much as, neither the original nor the
copy of the original has been produced. It is an admitted position
that the petitioners have not seen original and have had no
occasion to even compare Annexure – A with the original.”
The court dismissed the writ petition with cost of Rs. 25,000 on
each of the petitioners, since the petitioners had admittedly filed
the petition without verifying or affirming any fact and without
the formation of even a belief that what is stated in the petition
has any iota of truth behind it.
Read Judgment Here
whatapp-forward-not-document-under-evidence-act
Source: LiveLaw