Certified copies of public documents, including depositions of witnesses recorded in earlier cases, are admissible in evidence without calling any witness, unless the defense can show that such admission would cause prejudice.

Arunabha Basu, J.: The revisional application is directed against the order dated 13th December, 2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Serampore in connection with G.R. Case No.427 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the prosecution for exhibiting the certified copy of depositions of Dr. Jayanta Basu and Dr. Sandip Basu, recorded in connection with Matrimonial Suit No. 103/1995 was rejected. In the revisional application it is stated that the O.Ps. herein filed the report of the doctors before the learned Magistrate but did not file the evidence recorded by learned Additional District Judge in Matrimonial Suit No.103 of 1995 which contradicts their reports, as would be evident from cross-examination of those witnesses.

2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the report which was prepared by Dr. Jayanta Basu was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Hooghly in Matrimonial Suit No.103 of 1995 and the petitioner herein raised objection to the said report and the doctor was cross-examined by the petitioner and during cross-examination many contradictions about the report could be extracted. Copy of the said reports and depositions of Dr. Jayanta Basu and Dr. San dip Basu were annexed along with this revisional application as Annexure P-2.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that if the evidence of the above noted persons are not brought on record in connection with the criminal trial then serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioner.

4. From the document- produced along with the revisional application it appears that the report of doctor which was exhibited in connection with Matrimonial Suit No.103 of 1995 was produced during the course of trial in connection with the criminal case and the learned Magistrate allowed the same to be marked as Ext. B, as defence evidence.

5. While dealing with the application filed by the prosecution for exhibiting the evidence of the doctors in connection with the earlier proceeding learned Magistrate took into consideration about the objection of the defence. The defence objected on the ground that if the certified copies of the evidence in earlier case is marked as exhibit then the defence will be prejudiced as because defence will be deprived from cross-examination for taking contradiction of their previous statement. Defence also referred to section 145 of the Evidence Act.

6. It further appears from the order passed by the learned Magistrate that the petitioner referred to section 77 of the Evidence Act in support of the contention that such certified copy of the evidence of witnesses recorded in earlier case will be admissible under section 77 of the Act.

7. Learned Court below was of the view that even though section 77 of the Evidence Act, is the appropriate section but the same must be read together with section 145 of the Evidence Act. The learned Court below was of the opinion that the evidence in connection with earlier suit cannot be used as public document as the same will cause prejudice to the accused who will loose the opportunity to cross-examine those witnesses in connection with their previous statement. Learned Court below also held that even though said deposition in earlier case recorded by a Court of Law the same cannot be admitted into evidence in another case automatically. The learned Court below rejected the prayer in view of the above noted reasons learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of his contention has referred to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Sakina Khanum & Anr. vs. Laddan Saheba & ars., reported in CLJ Vol. II 218. In this decision the Division Bench of this Court held that deposition of a witness is part of the record of the acts of an official Tribunal within the meaning of section 74 of Evidence Act and the statement made in it can be proved by producing certified copy.

8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner also referred to the decision of Patna High Court in Ch