The privilege under S.54(1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act is that of the assessee and can be waived by him. The records in the assessment file constitute public documents, and the petitioner has a substantial right to inspect the documents specified.

1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit against the third respondent, instituted in the Sub-Court at Tellicherry, to enforce repayment of an alleged loan of Rs. 20,000/-. The suit was decreed by that Court, but on appeal, this Court remanded the case for a fresh decision after recording further evidence. One of the principal items of evidence on which the petitioner relies in the suit, is the entry relating to the transaction, in each of his two account books. He sought to establish the genuineness of the account books, which was impeached, by attempting to prove, that they had been produced earlier, before the Income tax Officer in assessment proceedings against him, under the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1955 (Act V of 1955), which may be referred to hereafter as the 'Act'. There was no reference in the assessment order, Ext. P1, dated December 31, 1955, to the account books, but a letter, Ext. P2, was addressed by the petitioner on April 30,1956, to the Income Tax Officer, pointing out, that the account books had been produced by him on November 28,1955, and praying for a revision of the assessment. After the case was remanded by this Court, the petitioner made two applications, Exts. P5 and P7, to the Income tax Officer, requesting, that copies of certain records in the assessment file may be furnished to him, and a third application, Ext. P6, that such records may be produced in Court. The Income Tax Officer refused to comply with these requests, by Ext. P8 dated July 23,1959. The petitioner had also made an application to the Sub-Court for the issue of summons to the Income Tax Officer to produce the records, but this was rejected by order dated July 21, 1959, which is sought to be revised in Civil Revision Petition 602 of 1959, which was heard along with this petition. The main prayer in O.P. 851 of 1959 in for the issue of a writ of mandamus to compel the Income tax Officer to grant copies and of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P8. S.52(1) and (2) of the Act may be quoted:

S.52(1): "All particulars contained in any statement made, return furnished or accounts or documents produced, under the provisions of this Act or in any evidence given or affidavit or deposition made in the course of any proceedings under this Act other than proceedings under this Chapter or in any record of an assessment proceeding or any proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand prepared for the purposes of this Act shall be treated as confidential and notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Central Act I of 1872], no Court shall, save as provided in this Act, be entitled to require any public servant to produce before it any such return, accounts, documents or record or any part of such record or to give evidence before it in respect thereof".

[2]: "If a public servant discloses any particulars contained in any such statement, return, accounts, documents, evidence, affidavit, deposition or record, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months and shall also be liable to fine".

The above provisions are identical with S.54(1) and (2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, which may be referred to as the 'Income Tax Act', and the law as declared or interpreted under the latter enactment, is helpful in deciding this petition. It is well-settled under S.54 of the Income Tax Act, that the object of that provision is to afford protection to the assessee, against disclosure of the particulars of his financial position to his detriment, by Income Tax Officers; it is also well-settled, that a Court cannot require the Income Tax Officer to produce before it, the documents specified in S.64(1) of the Income Tax Act, or to give evidence in respect of them, whatever be the provisions in the Indian Evidence Act. These propositions were not contested. It must follow from the latter, that the application made by the petitioner to the Sub-Court for the production of the d