9911796707
TMI Blog1940 (4) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made the respondent uneasy about his advances to the appellant. On 17th February 1934, both the parties were at Ellore and it is alleged that the respondent, accompanied by P.W. 2, who is admittedly a member of the same community and indebted to the respondent, visited a vakil (P.W. 3) who also belongs to the Vaisya community and who is the legal adviser of P.W. 2. That vakil was asked to draft a promissory note in renewal of previous debts due from the appellant to the respondent, the promissory note to be executed by both the appellant and his wife because of the alienation in the wife's favour already referred to. 2. The plaintiff's case was that the vakil was shown both the promissory notes, not only the note for ₹ 9000 odd but also the note for ₹ 24,400 and that he prepared a draft with reference to those two notes which were to be renewed by the joint promissory note. It is alleged that in the same evening the draft was handed over to the appellant in the shop of P.W. 2 and that an arrangement was made that the appellant should send word to the respondent, so that the latter might come to the appellant's house for the execution of the new promissor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is alleged that the proceedings were witnessed by three independent witnesses. One is P.W. 4, a Christian employed in a Chintalapudi tannery, who is said to have gone there accidentally when going on his rounds collecting skins. He is mentioned as an eyewitness in the report to the police made the same evening and there is no apparent reason for him to be introduced into the case unless he was actually present. He generally supports the respondent's story. 4. Besides him three other persons belonging to the village of Ganicherla, four miles from Pothanur, are said to have been present. They are P.Ws. 5 and 6 and another man who has not been examined. Their presence is not mentioned in the complaint to the police. P.Ws. 5 and 6 are both indebted to the plaintiff. They are said to have gone to the respondent's house to buy timber. They support the respondent's version of the occurrence but the fortuitous presence of these persons who are indebted to the respondent at the time o this occurrence must necessarily be suspicious and the suspicion is enhanced by the omission of their names from the complaint to the police. No great weight can therefore be attached to their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In that statement he says that the promissory note for ₹ 24,400 was executed in substitution for two debts due under promissory notes by the appellant to the respondent's wife and his brother Mallayya. The respondent was apparently asked if this larger promissory note was mentioned in his ledger and he said that he would search for the ledgers and then say that he could not say if that amount was entered separately in another book or if it was entered in the usual book and he could not say if he had opened a ledger in his wife's name. He said that he had taken his account books on 1st of April to show to his vakil with reference to a civil suit, and had handed them over to his younger brother and that he would make a fuller statement after sending for the books from Ellore. It must be conceded that the terms of the statement to the police do not suggest that the respondent at that time was confident that the details regarding this transaction for ₹ 24,400 would be found in his ordinary accounts. The criminal case against the appellant failed and subsequent revisional proceedings were also unsuccessful. The respondent thereafter filed first a suit on the admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the slight incident on the 28th, even if true, was admittedly not of such importance as to effect generally friendly relationship. In such circumstances, it is incredible that the respondent, a rich Vaisya money lender, should have invented out of nothing at all a completely false story of an outrageous crime whereby he could fasten upon his friend a liability for approximately ₹ 34,000, which was not true at all. It would of course be quite conceivable, if there had been a violent quarrel between the parties connected with the admittedly genuine promissory note for ₹ 9000 odd, and resulting in the destruction or appropriation of this promissory note, that the respondent might have utilized the interval between this incident and his complaint to exaggerate the story and add to it a false claim for ₹ 24,000, and in such circumstances it is conceivable that the appellant might have retaliated by putting forward a false story of discharge of the admitted promissory note and have denied the whole occurrence in order to support his false story of discharge. 8. Such a theory would explain the delay in the complaint and its omissions, the hesitations of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ull Bench the question of its admissibility in view of the decision of our learned brothers Burn and Stodart JJ. in Mythili v. Janaki (1940) 27 A.I.R. Mad. 161. In our opinion, the evidential value of these income-tax documents is such that if they are admitted, the correctness of the lower Court's conclusion is clear. If they are to be rejected, we shall have to decide hereafter whether the remaining evidence is sufficient to establish the pre-existence of this note for ₹ 24,400, which if established, seems to us, in view of the defendant's denials and suppressions, to warrant the decree which has been given. 10. The legal difficulty may be briefly stated. Exs. E and H are both certified copies. If the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74, Evidence Act, then the certified copies are good secondary evidence of that original under Section 65(e). If these statements are not public documents we are unable to see how the certified copies can be admitted into evidence under any other clause of Section 65, Evidence Act. Section 74 defines public documents as documents forming the acts or records of the acts : (1) of the sovereign authority, (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1925) 12 A.I.R. Rang. 84 wherein a single Judge held that income-tax returns being made confidential by Section 54, Income-tax Act, certified copies of such a return could not lawfully be given and if given could not be used in evidence. In Devidutt v. Shriram Narayandoss (1932) 19 A.I.R. Bom. 291 at p. 329, a Bench of the Bombay High Court held that certified copies of an income-tax return could not be given in evidence, because the return is not a public document within the meaning of Section 74, Evidence Act, and that the prohibition in Section 54, Income-tax Act, was sufficient to warrant the view that a certified copy could not be lawfully obtained and would not be admissible in evidence if obtained. It seems to us that these decisions raise a question of far reaching importance. With all respect to the learned Judges who have held otherwise, we do not consider that the prohibition against the disclosure of the contents of an income-tax return can have any bearing on the admissibility of the contents of that return filed at the instance of the person who made it. If the income-tax return is a part of the record of the act of the Income-tax Officer making the assessment, a ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act other than proceeding under Chap. VIII (which relates to offences and penalties) or in a record of an assessment proceeding, or a proceeding relating to the recovery of a demand shall be treated as confidential, and notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, 1872, no Court shall be entitled to require a public servant to produce a document referred to in the Section or to give evidence thereon. Sub-section (2) provides for the punishment of a public servant who unlawfully discloses particulars of an income-tax matter. Sub-section (3) sets out the occasions on which disclosure can lawfully be made. It is not necessary to set them out as the provisions of Sub-section (3) have no application here and have no bearing on the reported decisions which have relation to the application of Section 54. 15. While Section 54 prohibits the disclosure, except on specified occasions of matters connected with an assessment to income-tax and prohibits a Court from requiring a public servant to produce the documents mentioned in the Section or to give evidence in respect of them, it does not follow that the Court may not admit in evidence a document which falls within Section 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . If an income-tax return or a statement filed in support of it is a public document within the meaning of Section 74, certified copies will be admissible under Section 65(e). The answer to the question whether a document of this nature is a public document depends on whether it is a document forming an act or the record of an act or acts of an Income-tax Officer. Before stating opinion on the question I will first refer to certain of the cases which have been quoted in argument. 17. In Anwar All v. Tafozal Ahmad (1925) 12 A.I.R. Rang. 84 a single Judge of the Rangoon High Court held that income-tax returns being made confidential by reason of Section 54, Income-tax Act, and the disclosure of their contents being a punishable offence, certified copies cannot be admitted in evidence. The Court did not consider the effect of Section 74, Evidence Act, and decided against the admissibility of the certified copies submitted on the ground that Section 54, Income-tax Act, made the issue of copies unlawful and made the disclosure of the particular contents in the return an offence punishable with imprisonment. In my opinion, there is here a misconception. Section 54 does not make the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax Officer and therefore a document forming a record of his act. Though they did not accept the Bombay interpretation of Section 76, Evidence Act, the learned Judges concurred in the opinion expressed by the Bombay High Court in Devidutt v. Shriram Narayandoss (1932) 19 A.I.R. Bom. 291, that an income-tax return is not a public document. They did not say so, but it is to be gathered from their judgment that they did not regard an income-tax return as a public document because it is prepared by the assessee. 20. The question whether an income-tax return is a public document was discussed at some length by a Bench of this Court (Burn and Stodart JJ.) in Mythili v. Janaki (1940) 27 A.I.R. Mad. 161 and the conclusion arrived at was that it is not a public document within the meaning of Section 74, Evidence Act. The learn, ed Judges considered that it was impossible to infer from the wording of the Act that a return made by an assessee is either part of the act of the Income-tax Officer or part of the record of the act of that officer. In their opinion, to allow a person who comes into possession of a certified copy of a return to produce it in Court, and so prove the contents of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement recorded by an Income-tax Officer in the course of his examination of the assessee is a public document, it is difficult to sea why a statement handed in by the assessee disclosing the basis of the return called for should not be similarly regarded. Surely the test cannot be whether the profit and loss statement is actually drawn up by the Income-tax Officer. 22. As the learned Judges who have made the reference have pointed out, a plaint or a written statement has always been regarded by this Court as forming part of the record of a case and a public document of which an interested party may obtain a certified copy. If the argument, that an income-tax return is not a public document, but that the order passed thereon is, were carried to its logical conclusion, it would mean that no part of the record of a civil suit could be regarded as constituting a public document except evidence recorded by the Court or summonses or notices or interlocutory orders or the judgment in the case. In Bhagain Megh Banee Koer v. Gooroo Petahad Singh (1876) 25 W.B. 68 Garth, C.J. and Birch J. expressly held that a petition which was the subject-matter of an order passed was part of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
