#evidence admissibility

Bombay High Court rules that substantive justice prevails over procedural technicalities, admitting photographic and digital evidence under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act despite minor procedural lapses. The judgment reinforces that trial courts must avoid hyper-technical approaches that undermine the merits of a case, particularly in property disputes involving demolition.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a search conducted by the Railway Protection Force (RPF) without a warrant prior to FIR registration vitiates the recovery of property under the Railway Property Act. Additionally, confessions made to the RPF are inadmissible under Section 25 of the CrPC, reinforcing safeguards against illegal evidence in criminal proceedings.

CESTAT Mumbai rules that penalties against co-noticees under the Central Excise Rules cannot survive once the main noticee settles duty under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019. The judgment reinforces that co-noticee liability is derivative, offering relief to secondary parties in tax disputes.

Madras High Court holds that unstamped partition chits recording past oral family arrangements are admissible as evidence, subject to final determination of intent at trial.