SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1971 Supreme(Bom) 102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vimadalal J.R., J.
Appellants: C.H. Shah
Vs.
Respondent: S.S. Malpathak and Ors.
Suit No. 350 of 1963 Decided On: 05.08.1971
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M.H. Shah, M.P. Laud and A.N. Mody, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: R.L. Dalal and R.J. Joshi, Advs.

The originals of public documents are admissible in evidence, but they must be proved in the same manner as any other document.

Headnote:

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS - ADMISSIBILITY OF ORIGINALS - SECTIONS 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 74, 78, 79, 114 - EVIDENCE ACT - ORIGINALS OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE, BUT THEY MUST BE PROVED IN THE SAME MANNER AS ANY OTHER DOCUMENT.

Fact of the Case:

During the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff's son, the plaintiff's counsel sought to tender the originals of municipal bills-cum-receipts without proving them in the normal way, arguing that they were public documents and should be presumed genuine. The defendant objected, and the court reserved its ruling on the admissibility of the documents.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the originals of public documents are admissible in evidence, but they must be proved in the same manner as any other document. The court reasoned that the Evidence Act does not make any distinction between public and private documents in terms of their admissibility, and that the provisions relating to the admissibility of certified copies of public documents are merely enabling provisions that provide an additional or alternative facility for ensuring their preservation and safety.

Issues: 1. Whether the originals of public documents are admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the originals of public documents must be proved in the same manner as any other document.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Evidence Act does not make any distinction between public and private documents in terms of their admissibility. 2. The provisions relating to the admissibility of certified copies of public documents are merely enabling provisions that provide an additional or alternative facility for ensuring their preservation and safety. 3. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act, which require that all documents sought to be tendered in evidence must be proved, do not make any exception for public documents. 4. Illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which states that the Court may presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed, cannot be used to contravene an express provision of the Act itself.

Final Decision: The court rejected the bills-cum-receipts that had been marked for identification and did not admit them in evidence.

JUDGMENT - 1. In the course of the examination-in-chief of the plaintiffs son Lalbhai Shah. Mr. M. H. Shah who appeared for the plaintiff sought to tender the originals of municipal bills-cum-receipts for the period October 1968 to March 1969 without proving those documents in the normal way, it being his contention that they were public documents and there should, therefore, be a presumption of genuineness in their favour. Mr. Dalal objected to those documents being tendered in evidence without being duly proved. The said bills-cum-receipts were then marked X-1 by me merely for the purpose of identification and I had reserved my ruling in regard to their admissibility as the point raised is one of frequent occurrence and of some importance.

2. It will be convenient at the outset to refer to the relevant sections of the Evidence Act. Section 61 of the Evidence Act provides that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence; and Section 62 tells us that primary evidence means document itself produced before the Court, which must and has always been construed to mean, the original of the document in question. Section 64 lays down that documents must be proved by primary evidence, except in the cases set out in Section 65 which follows it. Section 65, by its various clauses lays down in what cases secondary evidence of a document is admissible and for the purpose of the present case it is necessary to refer only to Clause (e) thereof which enacts that secondary evidence is admissible when the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Act. In the last-but-one para of the said section it is laid down that, in cases falling under Clause (e) the secondary evidence of a public document that would be admissible would only be a certified copy of that document and nothing else. It may, at this stage, be mentioned that the Evidence Act sets out in Section 63 the various types of secondary evidence. The first clause refers to certified copies as being secondary evidence, and Clauses (2) and (3) refer to copies either made by a mechanical process which in itself ensures their accuracy, or copies compared with such copies or copies compared with the original to be secondary evidence. Section 74 lays down what documents are public documents and Clause (ii) of sub-section (1) makes documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of official bodies to be public documents. It was sought to be contended by Mr. Dalal that municipal authorities are not official bodies but whatever doubt may have arisen in that respect is cleared on reference to Clause (5) of Section 78 which includes the proceedings of a municipal body within the category of public documents. Section 74 must be construed in the context of the scheme of the other sections relating to public documents and, so construed, in my opinion, it would certainly include documents which form the acts or records of the acts of the municipal authorities within the category of public documents. Reference may also be made to the concluding part of Section 78 which makes it clear that in the case of the public documents specified in Section 78 both the original as well as a certified copy thereof would be admissible in evidence. I must also refer to Sections 67 and 68 of the Act. Section 67 enacts in terms which are both mandatory (the word used in "must" as well as unqualified that in the case of all documents the signature, or so much of the document as is alleged to be in the handwriting of some person must be proved to be in his handwriting; and in the case of documents which are required by law to be attested. Section 68 further requires that, except in the case of registered documents one attesting witness at least must be called. Sections 67 and 68, therefore, enjoin that all documents sought to be tendered in evidence must be proved and the manner in which they are to be proved is laid down by Sections 45, 47 and 73 of the Act




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top