Certified copies of public documents are admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, but they are not conclusive and must be supported by further evidence to establish their relevancy, admissibility, and the identity of the deponent.

( 1 ) THE plantiff has closed his evidence in the affirmative. Now the defendants are required to produce their evidence. At this stage, the defendants have made the present application (I. A. 396 of 1976) under Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act and have appended therewith copies of the following documents :

(I) Copies of 17 orders passed by the Estate Officer ; (ii) Copies of affidavits of Jagdish Popli, J. M. Sehgal and K. L. Bansal. (iii) Copy of the letter dated 8th January, 1976 sent by Shri Prakash Rai to the Estate Officer intimating his change of address. (iv) Copy of the statement of K. L. Bansal made before the Estate Officer on 10th March, 1975 and concluded on 14th November, 1975.

( 2 ) SO far as the production of copies of the orders are concerned, there is no dispute. They can be undoubtedly tendered in evidence.

( 3 ) AS regards the affidavits, copies of such documents cannot be taken in evidence. What evidence means and includes is defined in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Affidavits are not included in its definition. On the contrary, affidavits have been expressly excluded by virtue of section I of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, affidavits cannot be taken in evidence under any provision of the statue. This legal position has not been combated by the learned counsel for the defendants. So, copies of the affidavits cannot be allowed to be produced in evidence.

( 4 ) AS regards the copy of the letter dated 8th January, 1976, sent by Shri Prakash Rai to the Estate Officer, intimating his change of address, it is not a public document. It, therefore, cannot be taken in evidence. This could be proved by Shri Prakash Rai, when he had come in the witness box. Permission, therefore, cannot be granted for the production of this document.

( 5 ) IT is the fourth species of documents, which is the main bone of contention. The same is a copy of a statement of Shri K. L. Bansal made on solemn affirmation before the Estate Officer in the proceedings before him, in the case No. EO No. 3/73 (International Airports Authority of India v. Prakash Rai ). The statement of Shri Bansal was recorded by the Estate Officer on two dates, viz , 10th March and 14th November, 1975. The defendants want that a copy of this document be admitted in evidence with- out any proof. It is contended that copies of statements recorded by a Court or Tribunal are public documents within the meaning of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act and, therefore, certified copies thereof can be produced in evidence under section 77 of the same Act. Section 77 reads as under:-

"such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts of the public documents of which they purport to be copies. "it is the import of this section which is now the subject matter of controversy. There is no doubt that depositions recorded by a Court or a Tribunal, which can administer oath, are public documents (c. f. Chandreshwar v. Bisheshwar. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is that a certified copy of the statement of K. L. Bansal made before the Estate Officer in the proceedings before him is per se admissible and, therefore, it should be taken in evidence strightaway. It may be noted here that the parties in the present case are not the same, as were in the case in which K. L. Bansal had made his statement.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the defendants has further contended that he would simply refer to a part of the statements or submissions about the correctness or otherwise of its contents. Will it mean that the learned counsel does not want to use this copy of the statement as a substantive piece of evidence ?

( 7 ) SECTION 33 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down certain preconditions before the truth of the facts recorded in a previous statement can be considered. These conditions do not exist in the instant case. The learned counsel for the defendants has, however, submitted t