Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Vasam Hari Babu vs Vasam Veeraraghavamma And Anr. on 21 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(2)ALD481, 2001(1)ALD(CRI)329, 2001(1)ALT(CRI)197
ORDER T. Ch. Surya Rao, J.
1. The petitioner seeks to assail the Order dated 12.5.2000 passed by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pithapuram, East Godavari district while recording the evidence of R.W.1 in M.C.No.3 of 1998.
Under the impugned order when the petitioner R.W.1 sought to introduce three bonafide certificates said to have been issued by Andhra Vidyalaya High School, Hyderabad, so as to prove that his children are studying in the said school, on an objection taken by his adversary, the learned Magistrate held that the bonafide certificates issued by the Head Mistress, Andhra Vidyalaya School with regard to the class in which they are studying and the ages of the students are not admissible in evidence and therefore, they cannot be allowed to be marked as exhibits. Assailing the said order, the present criminal petition is filed.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner seeks to file these documents in the first instance with a view to summon the Head Mistress to prove the certificates later, but the certificates have not been permitted to be introduced and rejected at the threshold and therefore the order is not correct, legal and proper.
2. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is obvious that the learned Magistrate placing reliance upon a judgment of this court in K.LAXMAN RAO VS. STATE OF A.P.1 has come to the conclusion that since the certificates in question have been given by the Head Mistress of a school certifying the class in which the students are studying and about their ages and therefore the bonafide certificates issued by the Head Mistress are not admissible in evidence. In the judgment of this court referred to supra, the certificate of date of birth of the prosecutrix issued by the Head Mistress of the Junior College, Kagaznagar, when sought to be introduced, was objected to and it was held that being a copy of the entry made in regard thereto, in the concerned register of the school which register answers the determination of a public document in view of the bar engrafted under Section 65 (e) of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be permitted to be introduced since the only mode of proof in respect of public document is either to produce the original or certified copy thereof and no other mode of proof is permissible.
3. In the instant case, the documents, which are sought to be introduced, are 3 bonafide certificates. It is no doubt true that these three certificates contain an entry in regard to the date of birth of the students also. That will not alter the character of the main document, which is captioned as a bonafide certificate. The certificate contains the other details in regard to the admission number, name, father's name, academic year, class and conduct. The entire information contained in the certificate undoubtedly must have been gathered from other registers being maintained in the school except the entry in regard to the conduct of the students. Merely because the certificate contains the data to be gathered from the various registers, so long as it is a bonafide certificate issued by the Head Mistress, it cannot be said that it is a true copy of the various registers being maintained in the school. It is appropriate here to consider Sections 62, 63, 64 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.
4. Section 62 defines primary evidence, which means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court. Under the explanation appended thereunder, it is further stipulated that the document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document and if the document is executed in counterparts, each counterpart is primary evidence and when the documents are made by one uniform process such as printing, lithography or photography, each one is primary evidence.
5. Section 63 defines what is secondary evidence. As can be seen from this section, certified copy of a document; the copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies; copies made from or compared with the original; counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them and oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it, are stated to be secondary evidence. In other words, the certified copy of a document or a copy of the document is secondary evidence.
Coming to the proof, Section 64 of the Act mandates that always the proof must be by producing the primary evidence except where the secondary evidence is permissible under Section 65 of the Act. Section 65 enumerates the cases in which secondary evidence can be adduced where the original is shown to be in the possession of the adversary or in the possession of a person who is out of reach to the process of the Court or in the possession of a person who has not produced the same before the Court despite the notice; or when the original document is admitted in writing by the adversary; when the original has been destroyed or lost; when the original is not easily movable; when the original is a public document; when the certified copy of the original is permitted by the Act to be given in evidence; and when the original consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In respect of clauses (a), (c) and (d) any secondary evidence is admissible. In respect of clauses (e) and (f) a certified copy of the document alone is admissible and no other proof is permissible. In respect of clause (g) evidence may be given as to the general result of the document.
6. The documents which have now been sought to be introduced being the bonafide certificates issued by an Educational Institution will not answer the definition of secondary evidence as enjoined under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act in strict sense. They are neither certified copies nor copies are from the original, by way means as enumerated in sub-sections (2), (3)_, and (4) of Section 63. The information contained in these three bonafide certificates is the abstract of information contained in various registers to be maintained by the Educational Institutions. Strictly speaking they cannot answer the definition of a copy. The Apex Court in HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. V. UNION OF INDIA2 held that when a document is accurate or true and full reproduction of the original, it would be a copy. Therefore, these three bonafide certificates will not answer the definition of a copy in the circumstances.
7. Instances are not lacking where several certificates will be issued by the Educational Institutions such as pass certificate at 10th level and at Intermediate level, degree certificate at higher education level, transfer certificate when the student leaves the institution and conduct certificate. If the 10th Class pass certificate or Intermediate pass certificate were to be considered as a copy of the original registers since it contains the data in regard to age, class, date of admission, date of birth, marks obtained, etc., as gathered from such relevant registers maintained by the Educational Institution in regard thereto, which are undoubtedly the public documents, all the 10th Class certificates or the Intermediate Certificates, as the case may be, shall have to be held as not admissible. In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court referred to supra, these certificates, which contain the data, which must have been drawn from various registers maintained by the Educational Institutions, are not accurate or true and full reproduction of the original. Once they cannot be considered as true copies or copies of the various entries made in the relevant registers being maintained by the Educational Institutions, they cannot be considered as secondary evidence.
8. Therefore, in my considered view, those documents, namely, bonafide certificate, pass certificate. Transfer certificates and conduct certificates are originals by themselves. The probative value of the document is an altogether a different fact. Proof cannot be dispensed with even in respect of those certificates.
9. Even otherwise, as can be seen from clause (g) of Section 65, if a document is prepared drawing information from various other documents, may be the public documents, which cannot conveniently be produced before the Court, the information contained in such documents is nothing but an abstract information gathered from various public documents to be maintained by the Educational Institutions. In such circumstances, although the information contained in the public document is gathered, they cannot be considered as copies of public documents but an abstract of the same and is, therefore, admissible under clause (g) of Section 65. The Judgment of this Court relied upon by the Court below, under the circumstances has no application to the present facts. It has been rightly held therein that the certificate in regard to age being the true copy of the entry from the register, the only mode of proof is either the production of the original or the certified copy thereof. In any view of the matter, these three bonafide certificates cannot be held to be inadmissible since they are not the certified copies, as observed by the Court below.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed.