K. N. Wahchoo, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is limited to the question of a admissibility in evidence of a certain document in a criminal trial. The brief facts of the case necessary for elucidation of the question are these:Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya appellant was tried for committing criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 4,14,750 and the trial was with the aid of a jury. He was the cashier in the employment of M/s. Morarji Gokuldas Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., Bombay. As such he was entrusted with the funds of the Company. The charge against him was that between July 1 and December 1, 1954, he embezzled the amount mentioned above. Among the witnesses for the prosecution were Gopikisan, Chairman, Modi, Secretary. and Santook, a solicitor of the company. When the defalcation was discovered, certain conversations took place between Gopikisan, Modi and Santook who was consulted in this connection, and the appellant, between January 21 and 27, 1955. Santook prepared what are called notes of attendance of these conversations soon afterwards. In his evidence in Court, Santook deposed to what had taken place between him and these persons on those dates. The notes of attendance marked Ex. V were also produced to corroborate the testimony of Santook. An objection was taken before the trial judge to the admissibility of these notes on two grounds, namely- (1) that they could not be admitted in evidence as copies had not been supplied to the accused under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and (2) that they could not be given in evidence under S. 157 of the Evidence Act (hereinafter called the Act) as corroboration of Santook's evidence. The trial judge negatived both these contentions and admitted the notes in evidence. He referred to them in his charge to the jury. Eventually, however, the jury returned a vedict of not guilty by a majority of 5:3. The trial judge thereupon made a reference to the High Court under S. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court went through the entire evidence, including Ex. V., found the case proved, and convicted the appellant.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant has given up the attack on the admissibility of these notes on the basis of S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the decision of this Court in Narayan Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1958) SCR 283. He has, however, strenuously contended that the notes cannot be admitted in evidence under S. 157 of the Act.
(3.) Section 157 is in these terms - "In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.";