Important provisions of Indian evidence Act relating to public documents

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 officers, 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.

Print Page

Whether certified copy of plaint is public document?

 The certified copy of the plaint is not a public document. Hence, it requires proof. For proving such document, the original plaint should have been called in the court. That is not done, hence the certified copy of the plaint could not be said to be proved at all.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 67 of 1996

Decided On: 29.01.2008

 Shamlata  Vs. Vishweshwar Tukaram Giripunje and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges: 

C.L. Pangarkar, J.

Citation: AIR 2008 Bom 155

Print Page

Whether registered sale deed is public document?

 A sale deed which is not registered would be a private document as also a sale deed which is registered. On registration the sale deed does not become a public document. The sale deed continues to be a private document.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 2032 of 2008

Decided On: 15.07.2008

 Chetan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Bora and F.I. Rebello, JJ.

Citation: 2008(6) MHLJ 762

Print Page

Whether registered deed of assignment is public document?

 The Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 describes which documents would form public documents. The sub-section (1) thereof provides that the documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of the sovereign authority, of official bodies and tribunals, and of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country are the public documents whereas the sub-section (2) of Section 74 provides that the public records kept in any state of private documents are also public documents. Merely because the public records kept in the state of private documents are defined as public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act, that itself would not amount to contend that any document executed between two or more parties by itself would form a public document. The record pertaining to such document kept by the State though in the form of public record may form a public document, any such private document by itself cannot constitute to be a public document and it will continue to be a private document executed by the private parties. As such document would be a document enumerated under Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act. Being so, merely because the deed of assignment is registered with the competent authority that deed itself would not partake the nature of a public document and it will continue to be a private document. A record relating to the execution of such deed maintained by the State however may be a public document bearing in mind the provision of law comprised under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. Being so, the contention that the deed of assignment is a public document and therefore the petitioner would be taken by surprise by production of such document is to be rejected as being totally devoid of substance.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

W.P. No. 5832 of 2004

Decided On: 20.09.2004

 Purushottam Vs.  A.N. Jog and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Citation: 2005(1) MHLJ 426

Print Page

Whether Certified copy of public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling witness?

 Now the other question which remains to be decided is whether the compromise Ex. D3 is admissible in evidence or not? The compromise dated 27.11.1972 has become the basis of the decree dated 08.12.1972 passed by the Sub-Judge, Hoshiarpur. The perusal of Ex. D4 i.e., judgment and decree were passed as per the terms and conditions of compromise placed on file. As rightly observed by the courts below, the compromise has merged into a decree and has become part and parcel of it. To put it clear, the compromise had become a part of the decree which was passed by the court of Sub-Judge Ist Class, Hoshiarpur. Hence, it is a public document in terms of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short `the Act') and certified copy of the public document prepared under Section 76 of the Act is admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the said Act. A certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling  witness. Inasmuch as the decree was passed and drafted in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties, viz., the plaintiff and the defendants, the certified copy of such document which was produced before the Court, there is presumption as to the genuineness of such certified copy under Section 78 of the Act. We have already noted that the appellant-Jaswant Singh has not challenged the genuineness of certified copy in any manner. Although the record of the Court has been proved to be burnt in a fire in Judicial Record Room, Hoshiarpur on 16.06.1998, but the certified copy of the compromise (Ex.D3), which is the part of the decree was obtained from the record room on 24.08.1988 and the Decree Ex.D4 was got issued on 12.09.1984. In those circumstances, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of compromise (Ex.D3). Even otherwise, as rightly observed by the courts below, the appellant-Jaswant Singh had not filed any other substitute of the document Ex.D3, on the basis of which the decree (Ex.D4) had been said to be passed. As stated earlier, in view of the fact that the decree dated 08.12.1972 clearly says that the suit is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff as  per the terms of the compromise placed on file, there can be no other way to interpret the decree except in terms and conditions of the compromise (Ex.D3).
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Jaswant Singh vs Gurdev Singh & Ors on 21 October, 2011

Bench: P. Sathasivam, Jasti Chelameswar

Citation;2012(2)BomCR608,2012(3)MhLJ165(SC), (2012)2MLJ627(SC), 

 (2012)1SCC425

Print Page

When documents obtained under right to information can be treated as public document?

 In view of the above analysis, the xerox copy certified by the
designated Public Information Officer under Right to Information Act
of the private documents are not certified copies within the meaning
of the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. They are merely
true copies of the private documents available in the records of the
particular Department.  The production and marking of such copies
is permissible only after laying a foundation for acceptance of
secondary evidence under clauses (a) (b) or (c) of Section 65 of the
Act. The condition prescribed under the above cases (a), (b) or (c) of
Section 65 of the Act have to be fulfilled before marking the true
copies obtained under the Right to Information Act. However, the
true copies of public documents certified by the designated
Information Officer can be taken as certified copies of the public
documents. 
HYDERABAD HIGH COURT

Datti Kameswari Petitioner 
Vs
Singam Rao Sarath Chandra and another Respondent     



HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO            

Civil Revision Petition Nos.3031 and 3048 of 2015

OrderDate: 11-12-2015 

Citation;AIR 2016 Hyderabad 112

Print Page

Whether sanction for prosecution can be proved if person has given sanction for prosecution is not examined?

 Counsel for the appellant had taken another legal objection to the validity of the trial. He contends that for the prosecution of the accused-appellant, the sanction, though tendered in evidence and exhibited, was not duly proved by producing into the witness-box, the officer, who accorded it. Under Section 74 of the Evidence Act any writing may be proved by the opinion of any person who is acquainted with the handwriting of the man alleged to have written the document. A person may be acquainted with the handwriting of another person, (1) when he has seen that person write, (2) when he has received communication purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents purporting to be written by himself or (3) when in the ordinary course of business documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him. The technical requirement of proof of handwriting is satisfied if a person alleges that he had seen another person writing and that in his opinion the writing to be proved is that of the other person In the present case Mr. D.V. Chopra, P.W. 11, has stated that he has worked as Stenographer to Mr. S.C Saxena and he recognises his signatures as he used to sign papers in his presence. The order of sanction Ex. P. 943 contains the signatures of Mr. S.C. Saxena at portion marked A to B. This evidence has not been controverted on behalf of the accused It cannot, therefore, be said that the prosecution has not proved the genuineness of the signature of Mr. S.C. Saxena, Divisional Engineer Telegraphs, Jaipur. That apart, the sanction allowing the prosecution is a document which falls within the ambit of Section 74 of the Evidence Act and, therefore, it requires no formal proof. Production of its copy or original is a sufficient compliance of the law: vide Ravi Datt v. State A.I.R. 1956 Pepsu 12. Thus, the objection raised on behalf of the appellant is is over-ruled & it is held that the sanction Ex. P. 943 is perfectly valid. It discloses all the material facts of the case. It further reveals that the sanctioning authority did apply its mind before according it.

Rajasthan High Court

Prem Parkash vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 April, 1971

Equivalent citations: 1971 WLN 408

Bench: L Metha

Print Page

Whether certified copy of FIR is admissible in evidence?

Since the document in question viz., FIR is admittedly a public document well within the meaning of Section 74 and the same having not been disputed, the certified copy of the said document is admissible as a secondary evidence as per Section 65 (e).

Madras High Court

Sarvabhauman vs Notavailable on 27 March, 2013

Print Page

What are necessary conditions for admissibility of public document?

 In
order to render public document as admissible under
Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 three conditions
should be satisfied.(1) Entry relied on must be recorded in
official record, in official book or official register. (2) It must
be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact. (3) It
must be made by public servant in discharge of his official
duty or in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law.
Entry in record of right is admissible in evidence under
Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 on the principle
that law reposes confidence in public official entrusted with
public duty and it is presumed that public officials will
discharge their duties with accuracy and fidelity unless
contrary is proved. Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act 1872
is quoted in toto:
“Relevancy of entry in public [record or an
electronic record] made in performance of
duty—An entry in any public or other official
book, register or (record or an electronic
record), stating a fact in issue or relevant fact,
and made by a public servant in the discharge
of his official duty, or by any other person in
performance of a duty specially enjoined by the
law of the country in which such book, register,
or (record or an electronic record) is kept is
itself a relevant fact.”
13. It was held in case reported in AIR 2011 SC
1691 titled Murugam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu that public
document can be safely relied when public documents are
admissible under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act 1872.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
RSA No.156 of 2003.

 Date of judgment: October 1,2015.

Smt. Urmila Devi Vs  Baldev Raj S/o Dhani Ram
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.S.Rana, Judge.

Print Page

How to prove original of public document in evidence?

The question of proof of a public document came up before Bombay
High Court in C.H. Shah v. S.S. Malpathak & Ors., AIR 1973 Bom. 14,
where it was held as under:-
“4....... In all cases of secondary evidence under Section 65 read with
Section 63 of the Evidence Act when a copy or an oral account of a
document is admitted as secondary evidence, the execution of the original is
not required to be proved but if the original itself is sought to be tendered it
must be duly proved and there is no reason for applying a different rule to
public documents. Secondly, in the case of a certified copy, before a
presumption of its genuineness can be raised under Section 79, as laid down
by the Supreme Court in Bhinka's case already referred to above it must be
shown that the certified copy was executed substantially in the form and in
the manner provided by law. There would, therefore, be a check or safeguard
in so far as the officer certifying it in the manner required by law would have
to satisfy himself in regard to the authenticity of the original and in regard to
the accuracy of the copy which he certifies to be a true copy thereof. On the
other hand if the original of a public document is to be admitted in evidence
without proof of its genuineness, there would be no check whatever either by
way of scrutiny or examination of that document by an officer or by the
Court. The third and perhaps the most important reason, for not accepting
Mr.Shah's argument on the point which I am now considering is that neither
Section 67 nor Section 68 of the Evidence Act which lay down that the
signature and the handwriting on a document must be duly proved do not
make any exception in the case of public documents. In view of the
provisions of the said section all documents whatever be their nature must be
therefore be proved in the manner provided by Section 45, 47 or 73 of the
Evidence Act........
5. The only question which remains for consideration is whether a
presumption of the genuineness of the original of a public document should
be drawn by reason of Illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act to
the effect that official acts have been regularly performed. It is no doubt true
that it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of East
India Trading Co. v. Badat & Co., AIR 1959 Bom. 414 that Section 114 of
the Evidence Act is wide enough to permit the Court to raise a presumption
not only with regard to oral evidence, but also with regard to documentary
evidence. It may be mentioned that the decision of the Division Bench in the
said case was reversed on appeal by the Supreme Court by a majority AIR
1964 SC 538, but in the judgment of the majority the Supreme Court has not
referred to the point mentioned above. Apart from the undesirability of
taking a view which would let in any and every document tendered by
Government in suits to which it is a party without proof of genuineness, in
my opinion, no presumption under Section 114 can be drawn in view of the
mandatory and unqualified term of Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act.
Section 114 which to put it in popular language, merely empowers the Court
to use its commonsense, cannot be used to contravene an express provision
of the Act itself. I, therefore, hold that if the original of a public document is
sought to be tendered in evidence, it must be proved in the manner required
by law.....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
Date of decision: 29th November, 2012
MAC.APP. 76/2012

RAJINDER KUMAR Vs  LAL BACHAN & ORS.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

Print Page

Whether truth of contents of public document should be separately established?

The provisions of the Evidence Act, to which I have made reference, lay down the position clearly. Thereunder a certified copy of a public document can be admitted as secondary evidence to prove only what the document states. The truth of what the document states must be separately established. 
 All that the Evidence Act does not is that tit permits secondary evidence to be given of the registered documents because it is a public documents within the meaning of Section 74, and under S. 77 it provides that certified copies may be produced in proof of the content of the public documents All that a certified copy does is that it authenticates the genuineness of the copy. The Court presume that the original documents had the same contents as the copy. It certainly does not prove the actual execution of the original documents .........
It will have been noticed that the production of certified copies under the provisions of S. 63 is a means of leading secondary evidence. Secondarily evidence can, obviously, be led only what the documents states, not as to whether what the documents states id true. Under S. 65(e), secondary evidence may be given when the original is a public documents within the meaning of S. 74 and only a certified copy of the public documents is admissible. Secondary evidence of a public documents so led only proves what the documents states, no more. In other, words, he who seeks to prove a public documents is relieved of the obligation to produce the original. He can produce instead a certified copy. All other requirements he must still comply with.

It was

futile to merely prove the signature or the handwriting of the person who had signed or written various documents without calling that person, who was the only person who could depose to the correctness of the contents of those documents.

.... The contents of this letter were proved by the evidence of Ram Chandra Sharma who stated that the knew the handwriting of Swamiji with whom he had had correspondence even earlier. His evidence, thus, was sufficient to prove that Swamiji wrote this letter to Ram Chandra Sharma, and that the statement contained in the letter were made by Swamiji himself. It is true that, in the absence of examination of Swamiji, the correctness of those statements cannot be held to be proved. Thus, the evidence of Ram Chandra Sharam proves the contents of the letter, but not the correctness of those contents ..........."

Bombay High Court

Om Prakash Berlia And Anr. vs Unit Trust Of India And Ors. on 28 June, 1982

Equivalent citations: AIR 1983 Bom 1, 1983 54 CompCas 136 Bom

Bench: Bharucha

Print Page