Amal Kumar Chatterjee vs State of U.P. and Others

G.P. Mathur, J.—We have heard Sri D.S. Mishra for the Petitioner at considerable length and have examined the record.

Sri Mishra has submitted that the police has prepared a list of Mafia leaders in which the name of the Petitioner has been included and the said action is wholly unjustified in law. The only document filed along with the petition is a photo copy of a newspaper report. In Laxmi Raj Shetty and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, , it has been held as under:

We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872, by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached u/s 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proof of the facts reported therein. It is now well-settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported.

This has been reiterated in Quamarul Islam Vs. S.K. Kanta and others, . It is, therefore, not possible to place reliance on newspaper report in absence of any other reliable documentary material.

That apart, even accepting the Petitioner''s contention, mere inclusion of his name in some list prepared by the police authorities does not infringe his legal or constitutional rights in any manner. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is dismissed summarily.