1982 (6) TMI 194 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Admissibility and proof of the truth of contents of certified copies of public documents.
2. Interpretation of "contents of documents" under the Evidence Act.
3. Applicability of sections 159 and 164 of the Companies Act to the annual return.

Issue-wise Analysis

1. Admissibility and Proof of the Truth of Contents of Certified Copies of Public Documents
The crux of the judgment revolves around whether the truth of the contents of certified copies of public documents, such as the return of allotments and the annual return filed by the 8th defendant company, is established prima facie or needs to be proven separately. The court examined several provisions of the Evidence Act to determine this.

Section 63 of the Evidence Act states that secondary evidence includes certified copies of documents. Section 77 allows certified copies to be produced in proof of the contents of public documents. However, the court clarified that these sections only establish what the document states, not the truth of its contents. The court cited several precedents, including Bishwanath Rai v. Sachhidanand Singh, AIR 1971 SC 1949, which held that proving the contents of a document does not equate to proving the correctness of those contents. The court also referenced Madholal Sindhu v. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1954 Bom. 305, and D and S, In re, AIR 1966 Bom. 228, which supported the view that the truth of the contents must be proven by calling the author of the document.

2. Interpretation of "Contents of Documents" Under the Evidence Act
The court discussed the interpretation of the term "contents of documents" as used in the Evidence Act. It was established that this term refers to what the document states, not the truth of what it states. Sections 61 and 62 of the Evidence Act require that the contents of a document be proved by primary or secondary evidence, but this does not extend to proving the truth of those contents. The court emphasized that merely producing a document for inspection does not prove the truth of its contents.

The court also examined the presumption under section 79, which deals with the genuineness of certified copies, and section 83, which presumes the accuracy of government maps and plans. However, these presumptions do not extend to the truth of the contents of other types of documents.

3. Applicability of Sections 159 and 164 of the Companies Act to the Annual Return
Mr. Nariman argued that the annual return, an extract of which was in question, is prima facie evidence of the matters directed or authorized to be inserted therein by the Companies Act, as per section 164. The court agreed, stating that the extract (Ex. 18) proves, by reason of section 164, prima facie the truth of the contents of its original. However, Mr. Cooper contended that some information in the extract exceeded the requirements of section 159. The court found that the information in the annual return did not exceed the requirements of section 159 and thus held that the extract was prima facie evidence of the truth of its contents.

Conclusion
The judgment clarified that certified copies of public documents prove only what the documents state, not the truth of their contents, unless the author of the document is called to testify. However, under sections 159 and 164 of the Companies Act, the annual return can be considered prima facie evidence of the truth of its contents.