Skip to content


In Re: a Veluayudam Pillai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in115Ind.Cas.509
AppellantIn Re: a Veluayudam Pillai and ors.
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), sections 74 and 78 - circular of director-general of posts and telegraphs as to intention to issue certain kinds of stamps, whether official act--admissibility in evidence. - .....that ex. l as it stands is not admissible in evidence. it has been admitted as if it were a public document. but it does not come within the definition of a public document in section 74 of the evidence act. it is a circular by which the director general of posts and. telegraphs notified in august 1922, that stamps of the kind in question would soon be issued to post offices for sale to the public such a notification of intention cannot be treated as an 'actor 'record' of an act of a public officer within the meaning of section 74 of the evidence act. nor is it certified by the head of the department nor does it purport to be printed by order of the government within the meaning of section 78 of the evidence act. it is, therefore, inadmissible i may add that, even if admissible,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Reilly, J.

1. The only evidence in this case that Ex. C-4 is a false document is Ex. L, by which the prosecution has sought to prove that the kind of stamp which appears under the executant's signature on Ex. C-4 was not issued until some years after the date of Ex. C 4. It is contended for the petitioners that Ex. L as it stands is not admissible in evidence. It has been admitted as if it were a public document. But it does not come within the definition of a public document in Section 74 of the Evidence Act. It is a circular by which the Director General of Posts and. Telegraphs notified in August 1922, that stamps of the kind in question would soon be issued to Post Offices for sale to the public Such a notification of intention cannot be treated as an 'actor 'record' of an act of a public officer within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Nor is it certified by the head of the department nor does it purport to be printed by order of the Government within the meaning of Section 78 of the Evidence Act. It is, therefore, inadmissible I may add that, even if admissible, Ex. L would not by itself prove that stamps of the kind in question had not been issued at all in December 1920, the date of Ex. C-4.

2. The convictions and sentences of the petitioners are set aside. As the prosecution did not attempt better proof of the allegation that Ex. C-4 was a false document, I do not think it is necessary to order a re-trial. The petitioners are acquitted.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //