A C JAILAVUDHEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is a statement given before an Arbitral Tribunal a previous statement coming under Sec. 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872?

(2.) Can a copy of a witness statement obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 be received in evidence and used to contradict that witness, or for any other purpose?

(3.) Sec. 1 of the Evidence Act excludes the application of its provisions to the proceedings before an Arbitrator. Therefore, evidence recorded before the Arbitrator is not in terms of the provisions of the Evidence Act. That, however, does not mean that a statement recorded by the Arbitrator cannot be used for any purpose in some other proceedings as allowed by the provisions of the Evidence Act. That question has to be considered with reference to the provisions in the Evidence Act. The first question arises for consideration is whether a copy issued under the Right to Information Act is admissible in evidence before a court. Depending upon the nature of the document; whether it is private or public, the criteria differ. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Kumarpal N.Shah (since deceased) through LRs. Mrs.Tarunbala Kumarpal Shah and others v. Universal Mechanical Works Pvt.Ltd. [2020 (1) Mh.L.J. 442] held that in the case of a private document, its admissibility is subject to proof of its contents. Whereas, a public document carries it with a presumption as allowed under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act. Here, the dispute is with respect to a statement recorded before the Arbitral Tribunal. Can the said statement be termed as a public document?