Ratios:
a. Any entry in any public or official book, register or record relate to a fact in issue or relevant fact made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or in performance of a duty substantially enjoined upon him by law would be deemed as true and correct.
b. Not only the records reflecting the acts of a public servant but also all the documents which form part of such acts would be classified as public documents.
c. Opinion given by a scientific officer in discharge of his official function would be a public document.

The defendant produced Ex.B7 which is a certified copy of the report of the Scientific Officer attached to Forensic Sciences Department, Government of Tamilnadu during the course of evidence and the same was marked with objections by the Trial Court. Such an order passed in the docket sheet by the Trial Court is challenged by the plaintiff in the present revision.

2. Ex.B7 is found to be a certified copy of the report of the Scientific Officer attached to Forensic Sciences Department, Government of Tamilnadu. The same was marked during the course of trial in a case relating to Crime No.25 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee, having been collected by the investigating officer in that case. The defendant, having obtained a certified copy of the said report of the Scientific Officer, produced it before the court and the same was marked as Ex.B7 overruling the objections raised by the plaintiff. The Trial Court observed that the defendant was entitled to mark the said document as the same was found to be a public document and that the contention that the said report was tainted with mala fides would have to be established by the plaintiff by summoning the expert concerned.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would vehemently submit that the report of the Scientific Officer, which contains only the opinion, cannot be construed as a document forming the act of the Public Officer or a record of the act performed by the Public Officer. The Trial Court, having marked the said document as a public document, shifted the entire burden on the plaintiff to establish the document which was produced by the plaintiff. Therefore, he would submit that the order passed by the Trial Court is revisable.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant would submit that the report submitted by the Scientific Officer falls very much within the category of public document as defined under section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act inasmuch as the said document forms part of the act performed by the Scientific Officer, who is admittedly a Public Officer. Therefore, he would submit that the observations made by the Trial Court and the decision taken by it is correct and proper.

5. Beforeadverting to section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it would be relevant to refer to section 35 of the said Act. Section 35 speaks about the relevancy of entry in public record made by the public servant in discharge of his official duty. As per section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, the entry relied upon must be one in any public or official book, register or record. Secondly, it must relate to a fact in issue or relevant fact. Thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or any person in performance of a duty substantially enjoined upon him by law. The presumption is that a public servant, who makes such entry in the relevant public record has made it truly and correctly in the discharge of his official duty.

6. Under section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, all the records of the acts of public officers are classified as public documents.

7. Therefore, it is found that section 35 speaks about the relevancy of the entry made in the public record in discharge of his official duty by a public servant. A document which forms part of the official act or the records reflecting the acts performed by the public servant would fall under the classification enumerated in section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. The nature of the document referred to under section 35 and the operation of the aforesaid provision of law are found to be different from the nature of documents defined under section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act.

8. In ABDUL HALIM v. RAJA SAADAT ALI (AIR 1928 OUDH 155), it has been held by the Single Judge of the court as follows:-

"Mr.Jinnah, the learned counsel on behalf of defendant 1, however, contended that the document was not admissible without proof, it be