9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (6) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escribed upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means, intended to be used or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. Again in section 3, a "fact" is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Section 59 states that all facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. Section 65 (61 ?) under the (Chapter) heading "of documentary evidence", states that the contents of documents may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence. Section 62 states that primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court. Section 63 relates to secondary evidence and states that secondary evidence includes, inter alia , certified copies given under the provisions thereinafter contained in the Act, and oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it. Section 64 requires that documents must be proved by primary evidence exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to be made by the authority of the Central or any State Govt. were so made and are accurate. Much depends upon the interpretation to be given to the expression "the contents of documents" in the Act. It was contended at first by Mr. Nariman that that expression wherever used in the Act meant the truth of the contents of documents. When, however, the court pointed out to him the provisions of section 63(5), Mr. Nariman submitted that at least in sections 61 and 77 that expression bore that meaning, being linked to "proved" in section 61 and to "proof" in section 77. Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th edition, states (at p. 278) that it is reasonable to presume that the same meaning is implied by the use of the same expression in every part of an Act. Section 63 states that secondary evidence includes an oral account of the contents of a document given by some person who has seen it. That person does not give evidence of the truth of the contents of the document merely by reason of having seen it, but of what he saw. In section 63, therefore, the expression "the contents of a document" must mean only what the document states. Section 61 provides that the cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requirement of proof of the handwriting and of the signature upon it would be almost superfluous. The Act requires, first, the production of the original document. If the original document is not available, secondary evidence may be given. This is to prove what the document states. Upon this, the document becomes admissible, except where it is signed or handwritten, wholly or in part. In such a case the second requirement is, under section 67, that the signature and handwriting must be proved. Further, where the party tendering the document finds it necessary to prove the truth of its contents, that is, the truth of what it states, he must do so in the manner he would prove a relevant fact. As the cases of Bishwanath Rai, AIR 1971 SC 1949, Madholal Sindhu [1954] 56 Bom. LR 147; AIR 1954 Bom. 305 and D and S, In re [1966] 68 Bom. LR 228 indicate, this is generally done by calling the author of the document. It would have been noticed that the production of certified copies under the provisions of section 63 is a means of leading secondary evidence. Secondary evidence can, obviously, be led only of what the document states, not as to whether what the document states is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention of Chagla J. had not been drawn to the relevant sections of the Indian Registration Act whereunder a statutory presumption arose that the facts mentioned in the endorsements required to be made under section 59 occurred as indicated in the endorsements. The judgement of the Division Bench did not, however, comment upon the aforesaid observations of Chagla J. They still stand as good law. Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The illustrations to the section state that the court may presume, inter alia , that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. In respect of public documents which form the acts or records of the acts of sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, the presumption can be, and is, in fact, invariably drawn. It is necessary, however, to appreciate that the source of the presumption is section 114. A judgment of the Calcu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Part II of the Schedule to that statute relates to a "copy, certified by the Registrar of Companies, of the balance-sheet, profit and loss account, and audit report of a company, filed with the said Registrar under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and the rules made thereunder". In Kashinath Sankarappa Wani v. New Akot Cotton Ginning Pressing Co. Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 437, the Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the copy of a balance-sheet filed by a company with the Registrar of Companies was rejected by the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that if the attention of the High Court had been drawn to section 3 of the Commercial Documents Evidence Act and to Item No. 21 in Part II of its Schedule the High Court would not have rejected the copy of the balance-sheet obtained by the appellant from the office of the Registrar of Companies. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the copy should have been admitted in evidence and it admitted the same. It then went on to consider whether it should presume the accuracy of its contents under section 3 of the Commercial Documents Evidence Act and held that the High Court would have been perfectly justified in not raisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was urged that the said copy and extract having been properly admitted the court was obliged to consider the truth of the contents thereof as being prima facie established. It would not, I think, be permissible to read the last sentence of para 19 of the judgment as holding that in all cases where a document has been admitted on record it can be looked at on the basis that the truth of its contents had been established, albeit prima facie. I find it difficult to read this sentence as overruling the decision in Bishwanth Rai's case AIR 1971 SC 1949 or the decisions of the High Courts or nullifying the distinction between proof of the contents of a document and proof of the truth of the contents of a document, for, there is no discussion of the provisions of the statute or of any earlier decisions. The sentence must, as I see it, be read in the context of the issues in the case and the paragraphs that immediately precede and succeed it. The judgment in Ramanbhai Nagjibhai Patel v. Jasvantsingh Udesingh Dabhi, AIR 1978 SC 1162, was cited because it referred (in para 13) to the decision in P. C. Purushothama Reddiar's case, AIR. 1972 SC 608. It is there stated only that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned judge held that, assuming that the production of the certified copy was not such proof where proof was necessary, it was not necessary there, for a person giving the name of one of the two alleged directors bad signed the statement, and, as the statement was accepted by the Registrar, it was common sense to assume that he was satisfied that it was made on behalf of the company. The reasoning of Woodroffe J. in this regard was accepted by all but one of the 5 learned judges constituting the Bench. The dissenting judge, Mookerjee J. held that although secondary evidence was admissible of a public document by way of its certified copy, the party who produced it was not relieved of his obligation to prove the execution of the document just as if the original had been produced, unless the case was covered by section 90 of the Evidence Act, or the legislature had otherwise expressly excepted it. With the greatest respect to the four learned judges, I find myself entirely in agreement with the view expressed by Mookerjee J. Mr. Nariman contended that the law on the point in India was what the law on the point in England was, viz ., that a certified copy of a public document prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
