B RSRINIVASAN Vs. BRAMHATANTRA PARAKALASWAMY MUTT MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition the true scope of S. 124 of the Indian Evidnece Act which shall be hereinafter called 'the Act', comes up for consideration.

(2.) The petitioners who are defendants 1 to 3 in original Suit No. 172 of 1958 in the Court of the Munsiff, Srirangapatna, summoned the Special Officer, Efficiency Audit, Bangalore, who shall be hereinafter called the Officer' to produce the following documents: (1) the final report submitted to the Government on 2-3-1956 in respect of the allegations made against the first defendant; (2) the Petition filed by K.V. Seetharamiah of Kalaly Village 'Officer'; and (3) the statement of Narasimha Raghavachar Mukhami of the plaintiff-Mutt. These documents were produced into Court but the person who produced the documents on behalf of the 'Officer' filed a memo saying that he had been instructed by the 'Officer' to claim privilege under S. 124 of 'the Act'. The petitioners did not press their summons as regards document No. 1. Hence we are merely concerned with the other two documents. The question for decision is whether the protection claimed under S. 124 of 'the Act' is sustainable, S. 124 reads:

(3.) The more important question for consideration is whether the two documents in question are communications made to any Public Officer in official confidence. Did the persons concerned make those statements in official confidence? This is a matter for the Court to decide and the Court below did not approach the question with a correct perspective. It has not given any reason for its conclusion that the statements in question were made in the official confidence. Whether a statement is made in official confidence or not is a question of fact. In order to define that fact the Court may have to take into consideration the nature of the statement, the nature of the enquiry etc. Before arriving at its decision the Court would undoubtedly examine the statements in question and the surrounding circumstances. It will also bear in mind that S. 124 of 'the Act' is an exception to the general rule. It may be further noted that ordinarily a communication is said to be made in official confidence, when one official communicates with another official in confidence.