Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Sahodra Bai VS Gajendra Singh - Crimes
"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9563"].Sahodra Bai VS Gajendra Singh - Crimes
"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9563"].Sahodra Bai VS Gajendra Singh - Crimes
"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9563"] ["IND_CG_2024_CGHC_14984"].In cases involving age proof, oral testimony of the person who made the entry or provided the information is crucial for establishing its evidentiary value ["
Sahodra Bai VS Gajendra Singh - Crimes
"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9563"].How it can be proved in a civil case:
Sahodra Bai VS Gajendra Singh - Crimes
"].Sahodra Bai VS Gajendra Singh - Crimes
"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9563"].Sahodra Bai VS Gajendra Singh - Crimes
"].Sahodra Bai VS Gajendra Singh - Crimes
"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9563"].Summary:The DCR Panji of the Forest Department has limited evidentiary value on its own. Its proof in a civil case hinges on examining the person who made the entry or provided the information, corroborative oral evidence, and the context of its creation. Without such examination, it is regarded as weak evidence, primarily supportive rather than conclusive ["
Sahodra Bai VS Gajendra Singh - Crimes
"] ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9563"].
In property disputes involving forest lands or produce like sandalwood, parties often rely on departmental records such as DCR Panji from the . But what is the of DCR Panji of and how it can be proved in a civil case? This question arises frequently in litigation over , seizures, or encroachments. While these records can support claims, courts typically do not treat them as without proper and . This blog explores the nuances, drawing from judicial precedents to guide litigants generally.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on case law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
DCR Panji documents are administrative records maintained by Forest Departments, often detailing forest produce such as sandalwood trees—their quantity, location, and status on reserved or private lands. These registers serve inventory and regulatory purposes but are not designed as judicial evidence of ownership. Their primary role is internal tracking, making their courtroom weight context-dependent. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 462
Generally, DCR Panji documents hold persuasive rather than conclusive in civil cases. Courts scrutinize their authenticity, maintenance standards, and relevance. Without rigorous preservation—like markings on trees or cross-verification—they may be deemed unreliable.
In a key ruling, the court examined records during a challenge to sandalwood seizure and confiscation. It observed:
The in the State of Kerala had not maintained a record of the sandalwood trees growing in and also . There was no marking of such trees to identify them for the purpose of such record. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 462
This highlights that DCR Panji-like records lack inherent conclusiveness if not properly kept. The court rejected them on grounds of poor upkeep, favoring revenue records and surveys instead. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 462
If defective, their value diminishes significantly, as courts prioritize credible alternatives.
Proving these records demands more than production. The relying party must:
Failure invites rejection, as in forest ouster disputes where departmental claims needed robust backing.
Other cases reinforce needs for departmental records:
These precedents show courts demand procedural rigor across record types, especially in forest or property matters. 2024 Supreme(BD)(SC) 14586
DCR Panji may shine if:- Maintained per statutes with markings and audits.- Backed by forensics or surveys (unlike unanalyzed wildlife evidence). 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 2242- Unchallenged by superior records.
However, contradictions—like revenue docs over departmental ones—tip scales. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 462
Courts urge: Parties relying on DCR Panji documents in should ensure the authenticity and proper maintenance of these records. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 462
Understanding these dynamics can shape successful strategies in forest-related civil suits. For tailored advice, engage legal experts familiar with local forest laws.
#DCRPanji #ForestLaw #EvidenceLaw
In the case on hand, Dakhil Kharij Panji has been exhibited as Ex. P6 by Chheduram Sandilya (PW11), but the contents thereof were not at all proved by the prosecution. ... value. ... If the entry in the scholar’s register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no ev....
will have no evidentiary value. ... Father of the prosecutrix GS (PW-5) in the cross-examination stated that on the basis of Kotwari Panji date of birth the prosecutrix was recorded in the school register, however, no such document or Kotwari Panji has been filed or proved during trial. ... SCC 604] and observed that the date of birth in the register of the school would not have any evidentiary value without the testimony of the person making the entry or the person w....
below a certain value in his department or otherwise as may be specified in the authorization. ... Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act and UMW Industries (1985) Sdn Bhd v. Ah Fook (1996) 1 CLJ 379 and Bank Bumiputra (M) Bhd & Anor v. Lorrain Esme Osman & Another Case (1987) 1 CLJ 572; (1987) CLJ (Rep) 472 were cited. ... In this case, the appellant was granted a licence to fell and extract timber in a forest reserve in Keningau, Sabah comprising an area of 5,665.59 hectares. The said lic....
below a certain value in his department or otherwise as may be specified in the authorization. ... In this case, the appellant was granted a licence to fell and extract timber in a forest reserve in Keningau, Sabah comprising an area of 5,665.59 hectares. The said licence was valid for a period of five years (13 March 1993-13 March 1998). ... Bokhari bin Abdullah (PW1), Managing Director of the Panji Alam, Encik Zakbah bin Harun (PW2), Executive, Business Development Department of the ....
below a certain value in his department or otherwise as may be specified in the authorization. ... In this case, the appellant was granted a licence to fell and extract timber in a forest reserve in Keningau, Sabah comprising an area of 5,665.59 hectares. The said licence was valid for a period of five years (13 March 1993-13 March 1998). ... Bokhari bin Abdullah (PW1), Managing Director of the Panji Alam, Encik Zakbah bin Harun (PW2), Executive, Business Development Department of the ....
HIGH COURT DIVISION tenant and also proved ... Subsequently, in the year 1951 by gezate notification the land was vested as forest land.
value …….” ... SCC 604, it has been observed that the date of birth in School Register has no evidentiary value unless, the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. ... If the entry in the scholar’s register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no eviden....
value …….” ... SCC 604, it has been observed that the date of birth in School Register has no evidentiary value unless, the person who made the entry or who gave the date of birth is examined. ... If the entry in the scholar’s register regarding date of birth is made on the basis of information given by parents, the entry would have evidentiary value but if it is given by a stranger or by someone else who had no special means of knowledge of the date of birth, such an entry will have no eviden....
Subsequently, the forest department tried to oust the plaintiffs by putting demarcation then the plaintiffs filed case No. 117/1963-64 and got the land released from the forest department. ... The forest department filed case under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act claiming that it was a part of reserve forest. Consequently, the instant suit has been filed. 5. ... The case of the #....
The statements of the accused relied upon by the prosecution at their face value indicate that the same cannot be given a value greater than the value attached to the statement recorded under Sec. 161 of the Cr.PC. In this case, majority of the statements were recorded by PW-7. ... The evidentiary value of a confession statement depends on its voluntary character. A confession made under any inducement, threat or promise loses its credibility. Thus a confession should be voluntary, tru....
What evidentiary value can be attached in the light of its incorporation in the Sale Deed is a matter for appreciation. Therefore, the Second Substantial Question of Law relied on by the Appellant/First Defendant also deserves to be answered against the Appellant and in favour of the First Respondent/Plaintiff." Ex. A7 is a supporting document, which is also an original document signed by the Assistant Engineer.
Therefore, the second substantial question of law relied on by the appellant/first defendant also deserves to be answered against the appellant and in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff. Ex.A7 is a supporting document, which is also an original document signed by the Assistant Engineer. What evidentiary value can be attached in the light of its incorporation in the sale deed is a matter for appreciation.
One cannot omit to note that the second respondent was a co-accused who had undergone trial in the earlier case. Except for this material, there is no other material pointed out by the petitioner to entertain a second complaint as per the test laid down in the decision already referred to. How far, even assuming his statement to be correct, can be binding on the fifth respondent and what evidentiary value it could have are matters open to serious doubt.
The effect of scrapping the Report is that the Report which is evidence in the case and part of the record ceased to be so and cannot be referred to by the parties. "....Under Or.26 R.10(2) C.P.C. the Report of the Commissioner is evidence in the Suit and forms part of the records. This Provision cannot be set at naught by scrapping the Report. The report of the Commissioner has therefore, evidentiary value and can be utilised by either of the parties as evidence in support of their case.
The effect of scrapping the report is that the Report which is evidence in the case and part of the record ceases to be so and cannot be referred to by the parties. The Report of the Commissioner has therefore, evidentiary value and can be utilised by either of the parties as evidence in support of their case. 1Under Or.26 R.10(2) C.P.C. the report of the Commissioner is evidence in the suit and forms part of the records. This provision cannot be set at naught by scrapping the Report.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
