HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. V. VINOD S/O. ANANDRAO PARATE 2025:BHC-NAG:8183:

DATE: 19/08/2025

COURT: High Court of Bombay

BENCH: Justice Prafulla S. Khubalkar

FACTS:

The petitioners, a management company, employed the respondent in a clerical role at their Khapri L.P.G. Plant. On 11.05.2009, the respondent was charge-sheeted for alleged misconduct, and a departmental enquiry was conducted, culminating in the respondent’s dismissal. The respondent subsequently raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT) found that while the departmental enquiry itself was fair, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse due to improper appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal granted the management an opportunity to prove the alleged misconduct before it. Following this, the management examined witnesses and filed an affidavit of Shri Kamlesh Sheth as a witness on 08.04.2025.

On the same day, the management applied for permission to lead secondary evidence with respect to four documents, claiming that the originals were unavailable/“not immediately traceable” in their office. The documents included employee leave applications, statements, a letter to the bank, and cash receipt screenshots. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the originals were essential to prove authenticity and that there was no foundation in the pleadings or evidence to justify secondary evidence. The Tribunal, by order dated 24.04.2025, rejected the management’s application, prompting the petitioners to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

ISSUES:

The primary issue in this case was whether the petitioners/management were entitled to lead secondary evidence for the four specified documents in the absence of originals, under Sections 58 and 60 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Court needed to determine if the management had laid sufficient foundation in pleadings or evidence to justify the use of secondary evidence, and whether mere non-availability or inability to trace the original documents constituted a valid ground for such evidence.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners/management had failed to establish an exceptional case for leading secondary evidence. The Court upheld the Tribunal’s order rejecting the application, finding that mere unavailability or temporary non-traceability of the original documents was insufficient to permit secondary evidence. Consequently, the petitioners’ request to admit secondary evidence was denied, and no interference under Article 227 was warranted.

The Court emphasized the settled legal position that primary evidence is the best evidence, and secondary evidence is admissible only in exceptional circumstances where the original cannot be produced due to reasons not arising from the party’s default or neglect. Sections 58 and 60 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, outline the permissible circumstances for secondary evidence, such as when originals are lost, destroyed, or otherwise unobtainable. The Court noted that the petitioners had merely stated that the documents were “not immediately traceable” without demonstrating that the originals were destroyed, lost, or unavailable for reasons beyond their control. Furthermore, the application was unsupported by any affidavit, being merely signed by counsel, and the documents sought to be proved were originally in the custody of the petitioners themselves, meaning the originals were likely available. The Court also referred to established principles from recent judgments, including Vijay v. Union of India (2023) 17 SCC 455, emphasizing that foundational evidence must exist to show that the alleged copies are true copies of the originals and that non-production of the original must be satisfactorily accounted for. Since the petitioners failed to meet this foundational requirement, the Tribunal’s refusal to admit secondary evidence was found to be lawful, and no intervention under Article 227 was necessary.

ANALYSIS:

The case highlights the importance of adhering to the principle that primary evidence is the best evidence, and secondary evidence is only permissible in exceptional circumstances. The petitioners/management attempted to rely on photocopies of four documents, claiming the originals were “not immediately traceable,” in order to establish misconduct by the respondent. The High Court emphasized that mere non-availability or temporary difficulty in tracing the originals does not automatically justify the use of secondary evidence. Since the documents were originally in the custody of the petitioners themselves, they were expected to produce the originals, and their failure to do so without sufficient justification meant there was no foundation for relying on secondary evidence.

Furthermore, the Court reinforced that Sections 58 and 60 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and established legal principles require a party to demonstrate that the originals cannot be produced for reasons not arising from their own default or neglect. The application filed by the petitioners lacked affidavit support and did not provide satisfactory explanation for the non-production of the original documents. The Court referred to precedents, including Vijay v. Union of India (2023) 17 SCC 455, which require foundational proof that secondary evidence is a true copy of the original. Consequently, the Tribunal’s refusal to admit secondary evidence was justified, and the High Court dismissed the writ petition, underscoring the necessity of proper justification and foundation before relying on secondary evidence in legal proceedings.