AMAL KUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. We have heard D. S. Mishra for the petitioner at considerable length and have examined the record,

(2.) 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 alongwith the petition is a photo copy of a newspaper report. In Laxmi Shetty v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1988 (3) SCC 319 it has been held as under:- "we cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in 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 under Section 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 con tained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence in the ab sence of the maker of the statement appearing in court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. " This has been reiterated in Quamarul Islam v. S. K. Kanta and others, JT1994 (1) SC 452. It is, therefore not possible to place reliance on newspaper report in ab sence of any other reliable documentary material