Certified copies prove contents, not truth, while annual return extracts may carry prima facie evidentiary value under the Companies Act.

A certified copy of a public document is admissible to prove the contents of the original, but it does not by itself prove the truth of the factual statements recorded in that document; the maker or writer must ordinarily be examined if truth is in issue. By contrast, an annual return extract certified under the Companies Act attracted the statutory presumption in section 164 because it concerned matters directed to be inserted in the return. The extract was therefore treated as prima facie evidence of those matters' truth. The article thus distinguishes admissibility and proof of contents from proof of truth, while recognising a separate statutory presumption for annual returns.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a certified copy of a public document proves, even prima facie, the truth of the contents of the original document; (ii) Whether an annual return extract certified under the Companies Act constitutes prima facie evidence of the truth of matters inserted therein under section 164 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether a certified copy of a public document proves, even prima facie, the truth of the contents of the original document.

Analysis: The relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 distinguish between proof of the contents of a document and proof of the truth of what the document states. Sections 61 to 65 and 77 permit the contents of a document, including a public document proved by certified copy, to be established as secondary evidence. Sections 74 to 79 and section 114 support admissibility and presumptions as to genuineness, but they do not, by themselves, create a presumption of correctness of the factual assertions contained in the document. The court also relied on authority distinguishing admissibility from proof of truth and held that the writer or maker must ordinarily be examined to prove the truth of the contents.

Conclusion: A certified copy of a public document proves only what the document states and does not, by itself, prove the truth or correctness of its contents, even prima facie.

Issue (ii): Whether an annual return extract certified under the Companies Act constitutes prima facie evidence of the truth of matters inserted therein under section 164 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Analysis: Section 159 of the Companies Act, 1956 requires an annual return, and section 164 provides that such return is prima facie evidence of matters directed or authorised to be inserted in it by the Act. On the facts, the extract concerned matters required to be included in the annual return and was not shown to contain information outside the statutory scheme. Accordingly, the statutory presumption under section 164 applied to the extract.

Conclusion: The annual return extract was held to be prima facie evidence of the truth of the contents of its original under section 164 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Final Conclusion: The court rejected any general presumption of truth arising merely from a certified copy of a public document, but upheld prima facie evidentiary value for the annual return extract under the Companies Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A certified copy under the Evidence Act establishes admissibility and the contents of the document, but not the truth of its factual assertions, unless a separate statutory presumption applies.

---