Public Documents Admissible Without Formal Proof

Taken from: Public Documents: Proof and Presumption

Jojy George Koduvath.

Relevant Provisions

Sec. 74  of the Evidence Act defines Public Documents. It reads as under:

  • 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.

Sec. 76  of the Evidence Act defines Certified copies of public documents. It reads as under:

  • 76. Certified copies of public documents.
  • Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.
  • Explanation. – Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.

Section 77 in The Indian Evidence Act, reads as under:

  • 77. Proof of documents by production of certified copies.
  • Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or part of the public documents of which they purport to be copies.

Public Documents can be Proved by Certified copy

In R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple, AIR 2003 SC 4548; 2003-8 SCC 752it is held as under:

  • “It is not disputed that the order of Charity Commissioner is a public document admissible in evidence without formal proof and certified copy of the document is admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the existence and contents of the original. An order of Charity Commissioner is not per se the evidence of title inasmuch as the Charity Commissioner is not under the law competent to adjudicate upon questions of title relating to immovable property which determination lies within the domain of a Civil Court.”

In Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti, AIR 1990  SC 396, it is held that correctness of certified copies can be presumed under Section 79.

Certified copies of the public documents can be proved without formal proof. See:

  • Jaswant Singh v. Gurdev Singh, 2012-1 SCC 425 ,
  • Shyam Lal @ Kuldeep v. Sanjeev Kumar, AIR 2009 SC  3115; 2009-12 SCC 454
  • P. Purushottam Reddy v.  Pratap Steels LTD. , AIR 2002 SC 771; 2002-2 SCC 686
  • Harpal Singh and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361
  • Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthalur Bojjappa, AIR 1963 SC 1633
  • Vijayamma v. G.  Venugopal, 2024-2 Ker HC 553
  • Arti Meena v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, 2020-1 SCT 1 (Raj).
  • Collector (L. A. ), South Andaman v. Himangshu Mondal, 2015-2 CalLT 1
  • Poddar Plantations Limited v. Thekkemariveettil Madhavi Amma, ILR 2014-1 Ker 813; 2014 1 KLT 439
  • Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corp. v. Nand Kishore, 2002 ACJ 1564 (Raj)
  • Md. Akbar v. State of A.P., 2002 CrLJ 3167 (And)

In Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthalur Bojjappa (Gajendragadkar , J.), AIR1963 SC1633; 1964-2 SCR 673, it is held as under:

  • “9. … The document in question being a Certified copy of a public document need not have been proved by calling a witness.”(Referred to in Rangaraju v. Kannayal, 10 Jan 2012, (Mad).

In Harpal Singh and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361, it is held as under:

  • “3.…  We cannot agree with him for the simple reason that the entry was made by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duties, that it is therefore clearly admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine its author ” (Quoted in: Manikanta v. State of Karnataka, 2024 Kar HC 21233)

In Shyam Lal @ Kuldeep v. Sanjeev Kumar, AIR 2009 SC  3115; 2009-12 SCC 454, it was observed as under:

  • “25. The findings of the learned District Judge holding Ex. P. 2 to be a public documentand admitting the same without formal proof cannot be questioned by the defendants in the present appeal sinceno objection was raised by them when such document was tendered and received in evidence.
  • It has been held in Dasondha Singh and Others v. Zalam Singh and Others [1997(1) P.L.R. 735] that an objection as to the admissibility and mode of proof of a document must be taken at the trial before it is received in evidence and marked as an exhibit.
  • Even otherwise such a document falls within the ambit of Section 74, Evidence Act, and is admissible per se without formal proof”.

The Supreme Court, in Jaswant Singh v. Gurdev Singh, 2012-1 SCC 425, it is held that certified copy of a public document prepared under Section 76 of the Act, in terms of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the said Act, without being proved by calling witness. It is said as under:

  • “9. … 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.”

See also the following cases where documents were accepted in evidence and acted upon on the basis of Section 35 Evidence Act:

  • Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 SC 1057 (admission forms as also the School’s register)
  • Harpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361 (certified copy of the birth register).

In Mosomat Jago Devi v. Mahabir Prasad Joshi, 2007-2 PCCR 164; 2007-3 PLJR 197 (Pat), it is held as under:

  • “It is true that this order-sheet is not an exhibited document but admittedly, it is a public document and since it is on record, as such judicial notice of the public document can be legally taken.”

In Silli Man Subba VS Man Bahadur Subba, 2015 ACJ 2575, it is pointed out as under:

  • “there was no necessity to examine the BDO to prove as the certificate would fall within the meaning of a public document as provided under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and that judicial notice can be taken of it under Clauses (6) and (7) of Section 57 thereof.”

In Sumer v. Bator, 2020-143 AllLR 55; 2020-4 AWC 4072 (All) it is held as under:

  • “Certified copies of these documents that are public documents, do no require formal proof. They are read in evidence as public documents.”

The Court can Take Judicial Notice of Public Records

In Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 2493; 2018-7 SCC 1

  • “123. There can be no dispute that parliamentary standing committee report being in the public domain is a public document. Therefore, it is admissible under Section 74 of the Evidence Act and judicial notice can be taken of such a document as envisaged under Section 57(4) of the Evidence Act. There can be no scintilla of doubt that the said document can be taken on record.”

In Bangalore Development Authority v. Bhagavandas Patel 2017 2 AIR(Kar)(R) 695; ILR 2017 Kar 1319, it is held as under:

  • “25. The documents now sought to be produced along with I.A.2/2007 are public documents and merely compliment the exhibits already marked as D1 and D2. The same being public documents, this Court takes judicial notice of the same.”

In Juhi Chawla v. Gangandeep Singh, 2020-1 MPWN 7, it is held as under:

  • “8. The Income Tax Return of the respondent cannot be treated a public document and the Court cannot take judicial notice of the same.”

Rama Association Private Limited v. Delhi Development Authority, 1998-74 DLT 653 (Del), it is held as under:

  • “It is a document emanating from DDA and it is a document for public use and, therefore. Court can take judicial notice of it and can look into the contents of the Master Plan.”

In Income Tax Officer v. Abdul Majeed, 1987-2 KLT 303 (KT Thomas, J.) observed as under:

  • “Proceedings under S.279(1) of the Act are official acts and the document evidencing the proceedings of the Commissioner is a public document, the production of which would be sufficient to enable the court to take judicial notice thereof. Even if the document containing the proceedings of the Commissioner has not been formally marked as an exhibit, the document cannot be overlooked by the Criminal Court. No formal proof through oral evidence is required for a public document. In Income tax Officer, Hassan v. Dharmchand Multanmul (1972 (Vol. 86) ITR 70) a similar situation arose. In Chat case the counsel for the accused pointed out at the time of argument that there was no sanction to prosecute him and hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed. At that stage, the Income-tax Officer filed an application for recalling the first witness for the purpose of formally proving the proceedings by which sanction was accorded. As the Magistrate did not accede to the request, the matter was taken up before the High Court of Mysore. It was observed by the High Court that recalling of the witness for the purpose of proving the sanction was not necessary “as it would be open to the Magistrate to look into the sanction produced by the prosecution”. I respectfully agree with the aforesaid reasoning of the learned single judge of the Mysore High Court. I therefore hold that the acquittal, on the ground that there was no formal proof of sanction, cannot be sustained.”

In Mangilal v. Mankunwarbai, 1986-2 MPWN 231, it is pointed out as under:

  • “Ex. D-1 being a public document, the Court below should have taken a judicial notice of the same.”

Official Document Relevant by itself, and no other proof required

In Shiv Ram v. Shiv Charan Singh, AIR 1964 Raj 126, it is observed as under:

  • “Where Section 35 properly comes into play, an entry made by a public servant in any public or official book in the discharge of his official duty becomes relevant by itself, and no other proof of such entry is required as a matter of law by our Evidence Act, but this, does not exclude the possibility that such an entry may become admissible otherwise if it is properly proved to have been made by a person ordinarily competent to make it.” (Quoted in Mayadhar Nayak vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Jajpur, AIR 1982 Ori 221).

Tax Paid Receipts are “Public Documents”

  • Bangli Nagappa v. G. Venkatakrishana Rao, AIR 2022 Kar 164
  • Boopathiammal v. Ranganayaki Ammal, 2021-4 CTC 451 (Mad)
  • Cazi Mohammad Patchmiam v. Sitabai Balaram Nipanikar, 2010-3 AllMR 823; 2010-5 BomCR 285; 2010 4 MhLJ 102;
  • M. S. Meiyappan v. The Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Revenue, Chepauk, 1994-1 LW 501 (Mad)
  • Laxmikant Slnal Lotlekar v. Raghuvir Sinai Lotlekar: 1984 MhLJ 938,
  • Yella Papayya v. Yella Suryanarayana: 1947-1 MLJ 79.

Author Need Not be Examined for Proving Document Admissible under S. 35

In Harpal Singh v. State of H. P. , AIR 1981 SC 361; 1981-1 SCC 560, it was held as under:

  • “A certified copy of the relevant entry in the birth register which shows that Saroj Kumari, who according to her evidence was known as Ramesh during her childhood, was born to Lajwanti wife of Daulot Ram on 11-11-1957. Mr. Hardy submitted that in the absence of the examination of the officer/chowkidar concerned who recorded the entry, it was inadmissible in evidence. We cannot agree with him for the simple reason that the entry was made by the concerned official in the discharge of his official duties, that it is therefore clearly admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and that it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine its author.”

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this cluster (Click on the topic):

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment