Skip to content

Emperor Vs. Phillip Spratt (No. 2) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Decided On
Case NumberCase No. 1 (Fifth Criminal Sessions, 1927)
Reported inAIR1928Bom77; (1928)30BOMLR314; 108Ind.Cas.32
RespondentPhillip Spratt (No. 2)
indian evidence act (i of 1872), sections 9, 14-intention-copy of a letter-proof of despatch of the letter.;the prosecution tendered in evidence a copy of a letter purporting to have been written by the accused to the editor of a newspaper sending for publication a portion of a pamphlet charged as seditious. the letter mentioned the writer's motive in writing the portion sent:-;(1) that the copy of the letter was relevant under sections 9 and 14 of the indian evidence act 1872, as evidence of the accused's intention, and was admissible ;;(2) that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the letter was sent, before its copy could be admitted. - .....the machine, ex......

Fawcett, J.

1. I hold the document is relevant and admissible.

2. It is relied on regarding accused's intention, and if this is what he wrote or typed, it falls under Sections 9 and 14 of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. It is an original, so far as it is relied on as a piece of evidence, found in accused's possession, and alleged to implicate him; so the question of its being secondary evidence of an original letter does not bar its admission.

4. As to the question whether a letter in accordance with this document was actually sent) to Mr. Horniman, this is a distinct question on which it is open to counsel to argue before the Court or to adduce evidence : but I do not agree with Mr. Talyarkhan that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that such a letter was sent, before this document earn be admitted.

5. Document admitted, subject to evidence as to the signature being accused's or the typewriting being from the machine, Ex. I.

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //