The hearing into the admissibility of a company document in the trial of former deputy prime minister Professor Biman Prasad continues at 3.30pm today.
The matter was heard before Magistrate Yogesh Prasad, with the defence arguing that the document was hearsay and should not be admitted unless the prosecution could establish a recognised exception to the hearsay rule.
Defence lawyer Richard Naidu submitted that the document, relating to the particulars of directors and officers of a company, had been produced through a witness who was not its maker and could not establish the truth or accuracy of the information contained in it.
Mr Naidu argued that the fact the document was a statutory return required under the former Companies Act and filed with the Registrar of Companies did not, by itself, make its contents admissible or conclusive evidence.
The defence also disputed the prosecution’s reliance on the document being a public record, submitting that there was no general hearsay exception providing that a document simply became admissible because it had been filed with a public authority.
Mr Naidu referred Magistrate Prasad to provisions of the former Companies Act concerning certificates of incorporation and registration, arguing that where Parliament intended a document to constitute conclusive evidence, the legislation expressly said so.
The defence submitted that such provisions did not extend to the disputed company return, and that the prosecution had not produced authority establishing that the document was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Mr Naidu also relied on the constitutional right of an accused person to challenge evidence presented against them, arguing that admitting the document without its maker being available for cross-examination would prejudice Prof Prasad’s ability to challenge its contents.
The prosecution had earlier argued that the document was a statutory return and formed part of the records maintained by the Registrar of Companies.
It submitted that the document was prepared and filed pursuant to statutory requirements under Section 202 of the former Companies Act and was therefore part of the statutory record-keeping system.
The prosecution also referred to the Public Records Act and a previous High Court decision concerning company records, arguing that the document qualified for admission.
The defence rejected that argument, saying the previous case was a civil matter and did not establish a hearsay exception in criminal proceedings.
The hearing resumes at 3.30pm.
