Whether it is necessary to prove contents of documents 30 years old?

Presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act in respect of 30 years' old document coming from proper custody relates to the signature, execution and attestation of a document i.e. to its genuineness but it does not give rise to presumption of correctness of every statement contained in it. The contents of the document are true or it had been acted upon have to be proved like any other fact. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1374 of 2008

Decided On: 17.07.2012

 Union of India (UOI) Vs.  Ibrahim Uddin and Ors.

Print Page

Whether contents of letters can be proved even though author of document is not examined?

Next are the document Nos. 4 and 5. Document at Sr. No.4 are the original letters dated 30.1.2009 and 6.2.2009 sent by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and addressed to the complainant. Both these documents purport to have been signed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. These letters were received by the complainant first letter at Sr.No.4 does not bear the date of sending. However, it purports to have been received on 30.1.2009 by Ashwin Sheth, the Managing Director of the complainant company. The letter was addressed to him. By this letter, the accused persons admitted to have received amount of Rs.25 crore on 25.2.2008 vide cheque No.820140 drawn on ICICI Bank. In the second para, it was stated that as the negotiation in respect of the property did not materialize, both the accused had handed over a cheque of Rs.25 crore dated 7.1.2009 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank to the complainant for repayment of the said amount. In the last para, they requested to deposit the said cheque on 5.2.2009. The document No.5 is the original letter dated 6.2.2009. It was issued in continuation of the earlier letter whereby the accused persons agreed to pay to the complainant interest at 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.25 crore till repayment. Both these original letters are on the letterhead of accused No.1 Ashvin C. Shah to the petitioner and both these letters purport to have been signed by both the accused persons. It is to be noted that before these letters were issued, the accused No.1 had issued a cheque dated 7.1.2009 in favour of the complainant and that original cheque is admitted. As stated earlier, no serious objection is taken to admission and execution of that cheque in evidence. The above refererd two letters purporting to have been sent by the accused persons and addressed to the Managing Director of the complainant were received by the Managing Director. Not only this, in response to the statutory notice dated 18.2.2009, the accused had sent the reply dated 6.3.2009.

The original reply of accused dated 6.3.2009 is at Sr.No.12. Under Sec. 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, when the Court has to form an opinion as to person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed, that it was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.

Explanation to Sec. 47 provides that a person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to the document written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person or when in the ordinary course of business the document purporting to be written by that person have been habitualy submitted to him. In the present case, the two letters referred above, were received in the office of the complainant in the ordinary course of business and in respect of the transaction which had taken place between the complainant and the accused. The complainant's witness Sharad Doshi was the Executive Assistant to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the complainant company. In this capacity, he was expected to have received and seen the letters received from the accused persons by his boss ie.

 Managing Director. In paras 11 and 12 of his affidavit in evidence, witness Sharad Doshi specifically stated that the said letters were duly signed by both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and he knows the signature of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and could identify the same. In view of this statement on affidavit, and the provisions of Explanation to Sec. 47, the original letters purporting to have been signed by and received from the accused Nos. 1 and 2 could be admitted in evidence.

Bombay High Court

Ashish C. Shah vs M/S. Sheth Developers Pvt.Ltd. on 16 March, 2011

Bench: J. H. Bhatia

Criminal writ petition NO.40/2011

Citation:2011 (4) AIR Bom R 266

Print Page

Whether contents of document can be proved by circumstantial evidence?

The proof of the genuineness of a document is proof of the authorship of the document and is proof of a fact like that of any other fact. The evidence relating thereto may be direct or circumstantial. It may consist of direct evidence of a person who saw the document being written or the signature being affixed. It may be proof of the handwriting of the contents, or of the signature, by one of the modes provided in ss. 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. It may also be proved by internal evidence afforded by the contents of the document. This last mode of proof by the contents may be of considerable value where the disputed document purports to be a link in a chain of correspondence, some links in which are proved to the satisfaction of the court. In such a situation the person who is the recipient of the document, be it either a letter or a telegram, would be in a reasonably good position both with reference to his prior knowledge of the writing or the signature of the alleged sender, limited though it may be, as also his knowledge of the subject matter of the chain of correspondence, to speak to its authorship. In an appropriate case the court may also be in a position to judge whether the document constitutes a genuine link in the chain of correspondence and thus to determine its authorship. We are unable, therefore, to say that the approach adopted by the courts below in arriving at the conclusion that the letters are genuine is open to any serious legal objection. The question, if any, can only be as to the adequacy of the material on which the conclusion as to the genuineness of the letters is arrived at.

Supreme Court of India

Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs The State Of Bombay on 6 September, 1957

Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 857, 1958 SCR 328

Bench: Jagannadhadas, B.

Print Page

What is distinction between proof of contents of document and proof of truth of contents of document?

At one stage in its judgment, the High Court has stated that this letter was not relevant when Swamiji himself was not examined and that, if it had been relevant, the Court would have been inclined to entertain the request for examination of Swamiji as a Court witness. Great reliance was placed by learned Counsel on this view expressed by the High Court in its judgment. It appears to us that the High Court was quite wrong in holding that this letter was not relevant. The contents of this letter were proved by the evidence of Ram Chandra Sharma who stated that he knew the handwriting of Swamiji with whom he had in correspondence even earlier. His evidence, thus, was sufficient to prove that Swamiji wrote this letter to Ram Chandra Sharma, and that the statements 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 Shrama proves the contents of the letter, but not the correctness of those contents. The letter was, therefore, admissible to the extent to which the fact that Swamiji wrote such a letter to Ram Chandra Sharma with its contents has bearing on the issues involved in this case. To that extent, the letter was relevant and admissible. However, we are not inclined to agree with the High Court that, if this letter is relevant and admissible, the Court should have examined Swamiji as its own witness. The relevancy or admissibility was judged by the Court at the last stage of delivering the judgment. There was no justification for the appellant to wait for the judgment and not examine Swamiji as his own witness as held by us above. In the circumstances, this letter has to be taken into account to the extent just indicated by us above.

Supreme Court of India

Bishwanath Rai vs Sachhidanand Singh on 7 May, 1971

Equivalent citations: AIR 1971 SC 1949, (1972) 4 SCC 707, 1971 III UJ 726 SC

Bench: J Shelat, V Bhargava

Print Page

Whether proof of signature on document is proof of contents?

 Before the learned Additional Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court reliance had been placed by the petitioners on a sale-deed but the executant of the sale-deed but the executant of the sale-deed was not examined. The proof of the signature of the executant, however, was offered but that itself could not prove that contents of the sale-deed or the truth of the contents of the sale-deed. On this ground the learned Judge refused to exhibit the sale-deed. While so doing he relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court "In the matter of Mr. D, and Mr. S " 1 (1968) 68 Bom LR 226) in which it was held.

"To conclude this part of the discussion, we hold, in the first place that what has been formally proved is the signature of Abreo and not the writing of the body of the document of Exh. 26 and secondly, that even if the entire document is held formally proved, that does not amount to a proof of the truth of the contents of the document. The only person competent to give evidence on the truthfulness of the contents of the document was Abreo."

This view in fact confirms the view taken by Bhagawati J. , as he then was , in Madholal Sindhu v. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd (1954 ) 56 Bom LR 147 : ( AIR 1954 Bom 305 ).

 Further the matter is no longer in doubt because in the decision of the supreme court inBishwanath Raj v. Sachhidanand singh, , it has been held that the correctness of the contents of the letter can only be proved by examining the writter of that letter. 

Bombay High Court

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs Municipal Commissioner For ... on 15 January, 1982

Equivalent citations: AIR 1982 Bom 387, 1982 (1) BomCR 819

Bench: Jahagirdar

Print Page