Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 809
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
A C JAILAVUDHEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(Crl.) 643/2024
S.RAJEEV, V.VINAY, M.S.ANEER, SARATH K.P., K.S.KIRAN, KRISHNAN PRERITH, PHILIP JOSEPH, ANILKUMAR C.R.
Statements from an Arbitral Tribunal are public documents and can be used for contradiction and corroboration in court proceedings under the Evidence Act.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 74, 76, 77, 145, and 157 - Admissibility of statements before an Arbitral Tribunal - The court held that statements recorded by an Arbitral Tribunal are public documents and can be used for contradiction and corroboration in subsequent proceedings. (Paras 3, 5, 11, 13, and 17)
(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(f) - Definition of information - A statement given before an Arbitral Tribunal qualifies as information under the RTI Act. (Paras 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Special Judge's order disallowing the use of a statement made before an Arbitral Tribunal for contradiction in a pending criminal case.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the statement was a public document and could be used in evidence.
Issues: The main issues were the admissibility of statements from an Arbitral Tribunal and the application of the Evidence Act in such contexts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that statements from an Arbitral Tribunal are public documents and can be used for contradiction and corroboration under the Evidence Act.
Result: The order of the Special Judge was set aside, and the original petition was allowed.
JUDGMENT
1) Is a statement given before an Arbitral Tribunal a previous statement coming under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872 ?
2) Can a copy of a witness statement obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 be received in evidence and used to contradict that witness, or for any other purpose?
The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.25 of 2011 pending before the court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. PW1, Sri.R.Rajan, during cross-examination, was confronted with Ext.P5 statement. The learned Special Judge disallowed that request stating that provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were not applicable to the arbitration proceedings and the copy of the statement of PW1 before the Arbitral Tribunal was one obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The said order is under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance).
3. Section 1 of the Evidence Act excludes the application of its provisions to the proceedings before an Arbitrator. Therefore, evidence recorded before the Arbitrator is not in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act. That, however, does not mean that a statement recorded by the Arbitrator cannot be used for any purpose in some other proceedings as allowed by the provisions of the Evidence Act. That question has to be considered with reference to the provisions in the Evidence Act. The first question arises for consideration is whether a copy issued under the Right to Information Act is admissible in evidence before a court. Depending upon the nature of the document; whether it is private or public, the criteria differ. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Kumarpal N.Shah (since deceased) through LRs. Mrs.Tarunbala Kumarpal Shah and others v. Universal Mechanical Works Pvt.Ltd. [2020 (1) Mh.L.J. 442] held that in the case of a private document, its admissibility is subject to proof of its contents. Whereas, a public document carries it with a presumption as allowed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Here, the dispute is with respect to a statement recorded before the Arbitral Tribunal. Can the said statement be termed as a public document?
4. Section 74 of the Evidence Act describes “public document”. It says that documents forming the acts or records of the acts of, inter alia, soverign authority official bodies and tribunals, public officer, legislative, judicial and executive are public documents. reads:
“74. Public documents.- The following documents are public documents :-
(1) Documents forming the acts or records of the acts-
(i) of the sovereign authority;
(ii) of official bodies and tribunals; and
(iii) of public officer, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth or of a foreign country;
(2) public records kept in any State of private documents.”
5. PW1 in C.C.No.25 of 2011 was examined as a witness before the Arbitral Tribunal also. The record of his statement is a document forming the acts of that Tribunal. Therefore, the statement of PW1 recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal, a copy of which is Ext.P5, is a public document.
6. Section 77 of the Evidence Act enables reception of a certified copy of a public document in proof of the contents of that document. How can a certified copy of a public document be issued is dealt with in Section 76 of the Evidence Act, which reads as follows:
“76. Certified copies of public documents.- Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and hi
