Pratibha Bonnerjea, J. - (1.) On 21-6-79, the defendant tried to prove certain documents contained in a file through its witness Mr. Balsubramanium. The witness could only prove the signatures, appearing in the documents and frankly admitted that he had nothing to do with this file. The evidence of this witness is that the Controller of Capital Issues has two branches. CCI (i) and CCI (ii). This CC (ii) deals with the valuation of assets and shares and this file belongs to CCI (ii). This file was caused to be produced under subpoena by the defendant from the custody of C.B.I. The first three sheets of the file have been marked Exts. 120-A, 120-B and 120-C subject to objection. But serious objections were taken by the plaintiff when Mr. Bhabra, the counsel for the defendant, stated that he would like to tender 13 documents in this manner. The counsel for the plaintiff objected on the ground that the contents of Exts. 120-A, 120-B and 120-C could not be proved by the witness. Only the signatures have been proved and without the contents, the signatures would be irrelevant and should not be admitted in evidence. Mr. Bhabra thereupon submitted that the defendant company being a Sterling Company, they had to obtain the sanction of the Reserve Bank of India under Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, for the sale of the tea estate at agreed price. Before giving sanction, the Reserve Bank in its turn, referred the matter to the Ministry of Finance seeking their advice in the matter under Section 75 of the FER Act. These facts are not disputed (See M. Goenka's Evidence Q 2883). The value of the tea estate is an issue in this suit. The file contains the inter-departmental communications of CCI (ii) in connection with the reference made by the Reserve Bank. These documents are, therefore, relevant Under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. These documents being public records within the meaning of Sections 35 and 74 of the Evidence Act, can be proved by mere production of the original documents in Court. No formal proof is necessary. In support of his contention that these documents are public documents, Mr. Bhabra cited AIR 1918 Cal 988 a Special Bench decision of this High Court, holding that 'record' in Section 74 Clause 2 of the Evidence Act referred to collection of documents made by private persons and kept as a record in public offices to which the public have generally access. He also relied on, where the Division Bench held that the official correspondence would come under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. The next case relied on by Mr. Bhabra . It was held in that case that where according to the official practice, a book or a file of paper is maintained containing the copies of the communications sent, the book or the copies thus maintained itself is an official register within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. police report of election meetings were held to be relevant under Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
(2.) Mr. Mitter, however, submitted that Section 74 of the Evidence Act includes public document and records of private documents. The public documents, in true sense of the term are those documents to which the public has the right of inspection and can take certified copies thereof and they must be records of the final act of the officer concerned. Records relating to intermediatory stages would not be regarded as public documents.
(3.) On the basis of the decisions reported I have no doubt in my mind that the documents sought to be tendered by Mr. Bhabra, if they can be proved in a legal manner, will be relevant under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and will come under Section 74 of the Act. In view of my above finding I am not dealing with the nicety of law regarding the different classes of public documents on their different characteristics as pointed out by Mr. Mitter as that would be beside the point.;