1956 (5) TMI 40 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Admissibility of admissions in civil suits.
2. Obligations under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
3. Use of admissions as substantive evidence under Section 21 of the Evidence Act.
4. Conflict between judicial opinions regarding the use of admissions in evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Admissions in Civil Suits:

The case revolves around the admissibility of admissions made by a party in civil suits. The appellant produced letters written by the respondent, which were admitted by the respondent's counsel and exhibited as evidence. The central issue was whether these admissions could be used as substantive evidence to contradict the respondent's statements made on oath.

2. Obligations under Section 145 of the Evidence Act:

Section 145 of the Evidence Act states that a witness may be cross-examined regarding previous statements made in writing. If it is intended to contradict the witness by such writing, their attention must be called to those parts of it before the writing can be proved. The court had to determine if this section applied to admissions already proved on record and whether it was necessary to confront the witness with these admissions during cross-examination.

3. Use of Admissions as Substantive Evidence under Section 21 of the Evidence Act:

Section 21 of the Evidence Act allows admissions to be relevant and proved against the person who makes them. The court examined whether admissions could be used as substantive evidence without drawing the attention of the opponent to those admissions during cross-examination. The court concluded that clear and unambiguous admissions could be used as substantive evidence without the need for confrontation under Section 145.

4. Conflict between Judicial Opinions Regarding the Use of Admissions in Evidence:

The court acknowledged the conflict between judicial opinions on whether admissions must be confronted under Section 145 before being used as evidence. The court referred to various precedents, including the Privy Council decisions and other High Court rulings, to resolve this conflict. The court ultimately held that clear and unambiguous admissions do not require confrontation under Section 145 to be used as substantive evidence.

Judgment:

The court answered the referred questions as follows:

Question No. 1:
Where in a civil suit a party produces documents containing admissions by his opponent, which documents are admitted by the opponent's counsel, and the opponent enters the witness box, it is not obligatory on the party who produces those documents to draw in cross-examination the attention of the opponent to the said admissions before he can be permitted to use them for the purpose of contradicting the opponent provided that the admissions are clear and unambiguous. However, where the statements relied on as admissions are ambiguous or vague, it is obligatory on the party who relies on them to draw in cross-examination the attention of the opponent to the said statements before he can be permitted to use them for the purposes of contradicting the evidence on oath of the opponent.

Question No. 2:
The party producing these documents can be permitted under Section 21, Evidence Act to use them as substantive evidence in the case without drawing in cross-examination the attention of the opponent to those admissions.

Separate Judgment by Vashishtha Bhargava, J.:

Vashishtha Bhargava, J. dissented, emphasizing the necessity of confronting the witness with their previous admissions under Section 145 to ensure fairness and provide an opportunity for explanation. He argued that Section 145 should apply to admissions to prevent unfairness and uphold the principle that a person should not be condemned unheard.

Separate Judgment by Mirza Nasir Ullah Beg, J.:

Mirza Nasir Ullah Beg, J. concurred with the majority view, stating that Section 21 of the Evidence Act is not controlled by Section 145. He highlighted that admissions are substantive evidence and their admissibility is not dependent on the appearance or non-appearance of the party as a witness. He also emphasized that the rule of confrontation does not apply to admissions, as the party against whom they are produced is deemed to be aware of them and has the opportunity to explain them.

Conclusion:

The majority judgment established that clear and unambiguous admissions could be used as substantive evidence without the need for confrontation under Section 145, while ambiguous or vague admissions require such confrontation to ensure fairness.