TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on behalf of the complainants in RTPE No. 21 of 2001. By the second impugned order dated 13-12-2004 the MRTP Commission ordered that the admissibility and evidentiary value of a certain document referred to in the cross-examination of the complainant s witness, would be considered at the time of the final hearing, in light of the answers given by the witness during the cross-examination. Apart from challenging these two orders, the petitioner has, in this writ petition, also sought a direction to the MRTP Commission to first determine the issue of admissibility of the documents appended to the affidavit of evidence of the witness of the complainant. 2. We have heard the submissions of Mr. A.N. Haksar, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Shakdhar, Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 5 and Shri O.P. Dua, Senior Advocate for Respondent No. 3 complainant and other counsel appearing for the various parties. 3. The facts in brief are that Mr. Sarabjit S. Mokha and Mr. Neresh Grover, Respondents 3 and 4 herein, filed a complaint being RTPE No. 21 of 2001 before the MRTP Commission under section 10( a )( i ) and section 36B( a ) read with section 33(1)( d ) and section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of originals, the MRTP Commission held that the failure to do so by the complainants might result in an adverse inference being drawn against them. When the witness was in the witness box he could certainly be asked about the lacunae in the verification of the affidavit. The MRTP Commission was of the view that the application was premature since the stage of considering the admissibility of evidence had not been reached. 6. Eleven months later, in the course of the cross-examination of the witness for the complainant before the MRTP Commission, one of the senior counsel for the petitioners before us again raised the point regarding the admissibility of the Minutes of 5-7-2000, which was a document appended to the affidavit of the evidence of the complainant. The MRTP Commission by the second impugned order dated 2-12-2004 recorded the objections raised by the petitioners herein as well as the fact that the questions put to the witness in respect of the said document and the answers thereto by the witness were on record. The MRTP Commission held that the admissibility or evidentiary value of the Minutes and other similar documents would be considered at the time of final arg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, on behalf of yet another company. The tactics of the petitioner and other companies became evident from the fact that one witness was cross-examined for a period of more than one year and five months. Mr. Dua submitted that the present proceedings were an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. Having perused the record of the case and considering the submissions of the counsel it appears to us that the MRTP Commission was justified in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner herein for a ruling of the admissibility of the evidence, at the stage of cross-examination of the witness for the complainants. As rightly pointed out by the MRTP Commission, the question of admissibility of the evidence can well be considered after all the answers in the cross-examination of the witnesses have come on record. The failure to append an appropriate verification to the complainant s affidavit, the failure to produce the original documents and the reliance on hearsay can all be raised at the appropriate stage when the MRTP Commission considers the evidentiary value of the deposition of the witness for the complainants. 10. We do not understand the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the latter case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior court." [Emphasis supplied] (p. 764) 11. The highlighted portion of the above decision only indicates that the Court may rule on the objection as soon as it is raised, and not that it must. That is entirely up to the Court or Tribunal before whom the trial or enquiry is taking place. That element of discretion must be permitted to the Court or Tribunal concerned since the presiding officer is in the best position to decide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case fresh. 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. 14. When so recast, the practice which can 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 our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
