Public Documents under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Scope and Interpretation of 'Public Document' under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: A Judicial Analysis

Introduction

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter "the Act"), lays down the framework for admissibility and proof of evidence in judicial proceedings in India. Central to this framework is the distinction between public documents and private documents, delineated primarily in Sections 74 and 75 of the Act respectively. Section 74 defines 'public documents,' a category that enjoys certain privileges regarding their proof and admissibility, notably through the mechanism of certified copies. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of Section 74, drawing upon statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements to elucidate the scope, interpretation, and evidentiary significance of public documents in Indian law. The analysis will heavily integrate the provided reference materials to present a scholarly perspective on this critical aspect of evidence law.

Defining "Public Document": Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 74 of the Act categorizes public documents into two main clauses:

"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."[17]

This definition is foundational, and its two limbs have been the subject of extensive judicial scrutiny to determine the nature and characteristics of documents that qualify for this special status.

Clause (1): Documents Forming Acts or Records of Acts of Public Authorities

Section 74(1) encompasses documents that are either the acts themselves or records of such acts, performed by sovereign authorities, official bodies, tribunals, or public officers in their legislative, judicial, or executive capacities. The emphasis is on the official nature of the document's origin or the act it records.

Clause (2): Public Records Kept of Private Documents

Section 74(2) extends the definition to include public records maintained by the State concerning private documents. This clause acknowledges that while the original document may be private in nature, the record of it, if kept under a public duty or authority, attains the status of a public document.[10]

Judicial Exposition of Section 74(1): Acts or Records of Acts

The judiciary has played a significant role in interpreting the ambit of Section 74(1), clarifying what constitutes "acts or records of acts" and the scope of "public officer" and "official body."

Acts of Sovereign Authority, Official Bodies, and Public Officers

The Madras High Court in State Of Madras v. G. Krishnan considered whether a statement recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) would be a public document. The Court opined that even if occasioned by an individual's statement, the record made by the public officer under a statutory duty constitutes an act of the officer.[11] This principle was further affirmed in K. Tharush Moideen Petitioner v. Hasan Ambalam, where it was held that documents like charge-sheets filed by investigating officers, statements recorded by police under Section 161 CrPC, caste certificates issued by public authorities, and injury reports by medical officers are public documents, as they are outcomes of public duties discharged by public authorities.[15]

The Supreme Court in State Of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh And Others, while dealing with genealogical evidence, implicitly recognized the importance of documents maintained under official duties, referencing cases that highlighted the evidentiary weight of official documents created under statutory regulations.[4]

Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Functions

The term "public officers, legislative, judicial and executive" is comprehensive. The Bombay High Court in Standard Chartered Bank v. A.B.F.S.L. deliberated on whether a report of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) qualifies as a public document under Section 74(1)(iii). The argument presented was that a JPC, comprising members of Parliament probing into matters of public concern (like a financial scam), engages in a legislative inquiry, making its report an act of "public officers" in their "legislative" capacity.[19]

Court records, such as plaints, written statements, and judgments, once filed and forming part of the permanent record, partake the character of public documents.[14] In Narendra Prasad & Others v. Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Limited, the Madras High Court, citing Pyare Lal v. Meher Singh, noted that certified copies of such documents could be obtained, underscoring their public nature.[14] Similarly, income-tax returns and assessment orders have been held to be documents forming the acts or records of acts of public officers.[14], [16]

The Allahabad High Court in M/S Md Overseas Limited Petitioner v. Director General Of Income-Tax And Others S held that records relating to search operations maintained by public officers of the Income Tax Department, containing information received and reasons for authorizing the search, are public documents.[9]

Judicial Exposition of Section 74(2): Public Records of Private Documents

Section 74(2) deals with a distinct category: public records of private documents. This means the original document is private, but its official record is public.

The Nature of "Public Record"

The Bombay High Court in Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust Of India extensively discussed this clause in the context of company law filings. Returns filed by a company with the Registrar of Companies, such as the return of allotments and annual returns, are private documents in origin, but once filed and kept by the Registrar (a public office), the records thereof become public documents under Section 74(2).[5], [10], [21]

Registered Documents: A Point of Nuance

The status of registered private documents, like sale deeds, has seen some nuanced interpretations. In Vitthalrao v. Domaji Pandurang Kokate, the Bombay High Court held that a deed of cancellation, being a document executed between private parties, does not become a public document merely by virtue of its registration. It remains a private document.[23] This aligns with the understanding that the original private document itself does not transform into a public document.

However, the public *record* of such a registered private document, kept at the Sub-Registrar's office, falls under Section 74(2). The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Mamta Bai Sonkar v. Rajesh Sonkar, citing the Supreme Court in Andimuthu @ Thangapandi, held that a certified copy of a registered document is a copy of the original and the record of it is a public document under Section 74(2); Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, 1908, makes such a certified copy admissible in evidence.[24] The Gujarat High Court in Akbarbhai Kesarbhai Sipai And Others v. Mohanbhai Ambabhai Patel similarly noted that the Registrar's office keeps a public record of registered sale deeds, and a certified copy of this record is admissible.[25] The key distinction is that the *record kept by the public office* is the public document, not the original private instrument itself, though a certified copy of that public record can serve to prove the contents of the original private document.

Company Filings and Tax Returns

As established in Om Prakash Berlia, documents like annual returns filed with the Registrar of Companies are public documents by virtue of being public records of private submissions.[5] Similarly, income tax returns and related assessment documents, once part of the Income Tax Department's records, are considered public documents.[14], [16] In Katikineni Venkata Gopala Narasimha Rama Rao v. Chitluri Venkataramayya, the Madras High Court affirmed that documents relating to an individual's income tax assessment, if copies are supplied, can be put in evidence if the Evidence Act allows, implying their nature as public documents once part of the official record.[16]

Evidentiary Aspects of Public Documents

The classification of a document as 'public' carries significant evidentiary implications, primarily concerning its mode of proof and the presumptions attached to it.

Proof by Certified Copies (Sections 76, 77)

Section 76 of the Act mandates that every public officer having custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give on demand a certified copy thereof.[10], [16] Section 77 provides that such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or parts thereof.[10], [12] The Delhi High Court in Parkash Rai v. J.N. Dhar explained that Section 77 was enacted to obviate the need for producing original public documents, thereby preventing inconvenience and risk of loss or damage to originals.[12]

Presumption of Genuineness (Section 79)

Under Section 79 of the Act, the Court "shall presume to be genuine" every document purporting to be a certificate or certified copy, which is by law declared admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by an authorized officer.[10] This presumption relates to the genuineness of the copy as a true copy and the official character of the certifying officer, but not necessarily to the truth of the contents of the document itself.[5]

Admissibility as Secondary Evidence (Section 65(e))

Section 65(e) of the Act permits secondary evidence, specifically a certified copy, to be given when the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74.[17], [25] No other kind of secondary evidence is admissible in such cases.[17] This provision streamlines the process of proving public documents.

Relevance of Entries (Section 35)

Section 35 of the Act makes relevant any entry in any public or other official book, register, or 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 is kept. In Octavious Steel Co. Ltd. v. Endogram Tea Co. Ltd., the Calcutta High Court referred to Supreme Court precedent holding that reports made by public servants in discharge of their official duties were relevant under Section 35.[13]

Prima Facie Evidence v. Conclusive Proof of Contents

A critical question is whether a public document, or its certified copy, proves the truth of its contents. The general rule, as articulated in Madamanchi Ramappa And Another v. Muthaluru Bojjappa, is that a certified copy of a public document does not inherently establish the truth of its contents without further proof.[3] However, certain statutes may accord a prima facie value to the truth of the contents of specific public documents. For instance, in Om Prakash Berlia v. Unit Trust Of India, the Bombay High Court, after initial hesitation, concluded that an annual return filed under Section 164 of the Companies Act, 1956 (a public document under Section 74(2) of the Evidence Act), does serve as prima facie evidence of the truth of its contents due to the specific wording of Section 164 of the Companies Act itself.[5] This highlights that while Section 74 defines a public document, the evidentiary value of its contents might also be governed by the parent statute under which it is created or filed.

The case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ms. Vanshika Madan & Ors. S illustrates that even if a document (like a license verification report) is claimed to be a public document, its probative value can be challenged and may require further substantiation, especially if contradicted by other evidence or if not properly proved by its custodian or author.[18]

Distinction from Private Documents (Section 75) and Documents Not Qualifying as Public

Section 75 of the Act simply states that "All other documents are private."[17] The distinction is crucial because private documents generally require more stringent proof of execution and contents, typically through primary evidence or, where permissible, other forms of secondary evidence after laying a proper foundation.

The Bombay High Court in Manuel Barreto Xavier v. Narayan Biku Naik And Others clarified that a declaration made by a private citizen to a public authority, even if a certified copy is produced from the public authority's records, does not make the original declaration itself a public document under Section 74. The Court emphasized that Section 74(1) refers to documents *forming the acts or records of acts of public officers*, not documents created by private individuals and merely submitted to public officers.[22] This underscores that the origin and nature of the document are paramount. Similarly, newspaper reports, as held in Laxmi Raj Shetty And Another v. State Of Tamil Nadu, are generally hearsay and not public documents for the purpose of proving the truth of the facts reported therein.[6]

Contemporary Considerations: Digital Records and Access

With the advent of digital technologies, the nature of official records is evolving. The Supreme Court in State Of Punjab And Others v. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. dealt with the seizure of electronic documents (hard disk) under tax laws. While the case focused on interpreting the Punjab General Sales Tax Act in light of technological advancements, it touched upon the handling of "documents."[1] The Information Technology Act, 2000, and amendments to the Evidence Act to include electronic records mean that public documents can exist in digital formats. The principles of Section 74 would apply to such electronic records if they meet the definitional criteria, i.e., they are acts or records of acts of public authorities, or public records of private documents, maintained in electronic form.

The "right to inspect" mentioned in Section 76 is a prerequisite for obtaining a certified copy. However, this right is not absolute and can be curtailed by other laws. For instance, in M/S Md Overseas Limited Petitioner v. Director General Of Income-Tax And Others S, the Allahabad High Court, while holding that search-related records of the IT department are public documents, also noted the complexities surrounding the right to inspect such documents, especially in light of confidentiality provisions or restrictions under acts like the Right to Information Act, 2005, or the Income Tax Act itself.[9] The Madras High Court in Katikineni Venkata Gopala Narasimha Rama Rao also discussed the interplay between Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 (regarding confidentiality) and the provisions of the Evidence Act.[16]

Conclusion

Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides a crucial definition that underpins the law of documentary evidence in India. Its two-pronged approach, encompassing both direct acts and records of public authorities and public records of private documents, has been meticulously interpreted and applied by the judiciary. The courts have clarified that for a document to be public, it must generally emanate from an official source or be part of an official record maintained under a public duty. While the status of a 'public document' facilitates its proof through certified copies and attracts a presumption of genuineness for the copy, it does not automatically render the contents of the document conclusively true, unless a specific statute so provides.

The distinction between the original private document and the public record of that document (under Section 74(2)) is vital, particularly for registered instruments and company filings. As legal and administrative processes increasingly adopt digital formats, the principles enshrined in Section 74 will continue to guide the admissibility and proof of official records, ensuring a balance between procedural efficiency and the ascertainment of truth. The rich tapestry of case law demonstrates the judiciary's role in adapting these foundational principles to diverse factual matrices, thereby ensuring the continued relevance and efficacy of Section 74 in the Indian legal system.

References