TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1967 (6) TMI 48
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dvanced the simple contention that once a document is proved it must be admitted in evidence, and that once it is admitted in evidence he is entitled to rely on its contents. As the question is, however, of considerable importance and occurs very frequently in the course of trials in Courts, I am bound to consider all the authorities on the same. 2. Mr. Poonawalla's application was opposed by Mr. B. J. Kapadia on behalf of the defendants who relied in support of his objection on the decision in the case of Madholal Sindhu v. Asian Assu. Co. Ltd. (1945) 56 Bom. L.R. 147 In that case, Bhagwati J. held that a document could not be admitted in evidence without calling the signatory or the writer thereof, if what was sought to be proved w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er evidence, it would have to be weighed, its probative value ascertained, and either accepted or rejected. In the case of Mobarik Ali v. State of B'bay (1957) 61 Bom. L.R. 58. the Supreme Court held that proof of the authorship of a document is proof of a fact, like that of any other fact, and the evidence relating thereto may be direct or circumstantial. It was further observed in the judgment in the said case that proof of the handwriting of the contents, or of the signature, by one of the modes provided in Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act was not the only mode, and that a document may also be proved by the internal evidence afforded by the contents of the document itself. The last mode of proof would be of considerable value w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the admissibility of documentary evidence. I am, however, bound by that decision which is the decision of a Division Bench and, following the same, I must uphold the objection taken by Mr. Kapadia with regard to the admissibility of the document in question before me. Even so, I feel that as the point is of considerable importance, I must express my own views with regard to the same. 4. In my opinion, to hold that a document is not admissible for proof of its contents unless the writer is called, is to denude documentary evidence of all its value and is clearly contrary to certain express statutory provisions to be found in the Evidence Act to which I will presently refer. Documentary evidence becomes meaningless if the writer has to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... own contents as laid down in Mobarik Ali's case, What is important to note is the use of the word "contents", both in Sections 59 and 61 of the Evidence Act, which leaves no room for doubt that when a document is proved in the manner laid down by the Evidence Act, the contents of that document are also proved. Of course, as Coyajee J. has observed, if the writer is not called and the matter merely rests on proof of the document, it will be for the Court to consider, on the facts of each case, what probative value should be attached to the statements contained in the document. The view taken with regard to admissibility of documentary evidence in Madholal Sindhu's case as well as in the case of In the matter of Mr. D. and Mr. S., is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it in the document and cannot be said to be the "contents" of the document in which his statements are recorded. The passage from Halsbury, 3rd edn., Vol. 15, para. 533 at p. 294, cited in the Division Bench judgment in the case of In the matter of Mr. D. and Mr. S., if properly construed, in my opinion, lays down nothing more than that proposition, In fact, it states that the contents of counsel's opinion would be admissible for the purpose of proving what the opinion was, but would not be admissible to prove the truth of any statement of fact made by counsel in his opinion, which would be a matter which he has only heard from somebody else. Statements in a document are admissible to the same extent to which they would be admissible if....