Presumption as to telegraphic messages
Reference: The Indian Evidence Act
Section 88
Section 88
The Court may presume that a message, forwarded from a telegraph office to the person to whom such message purports to be addressed, corresponds with a message delivered for transmission at the office from which the message purports to be sent; but the Court shall not make any presumption as to the person by whom such message was delivered for transmission.
Similarly, no presumption can be made as to who sent an eMail or electronic message under Section 88 A. In District Magistrate v. G Jothisankar, 1993, it was held that a telegram is not an authentic document. It can be compared to an unsigned or anonymous communication. It is not evidence of who sent it: it is only primary evidence of the fact that it was delivered to the person to whom it is addressed on the date shown on it. (Abba Astavans v. Suresh, 1984)
Similarly, no presumption can be made as to who sent an eMail or electronic message under Section 88 A. In District Magistrate v. G Jothisankar, 1993, it was held that a telegram is not an authentic document. It can be compared to an unsigned or anonymous communication. It is not evidence of who sent it: it is only primary evidence of the fact that it was delivered to the person to whom it is addressed on the date shown on it. (Abba Astavans v. Suresh, 1984)
Labels: Evidence
<< Home