Harbans Lal vs Leena Rani

K.C. Gupta, J.—Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had placed on the file copies of the Assessment Order showing that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.Sandeep Knitwear and these have been wrongly excluded by the trial court from evidence and in fact the same are per se admissible in evidence. For the same purpose he had placed reliance on Hira Lal Chaudhary v. Ramanand Chaudhary and others, AIR 1959 SC 515, which supported the above contention of the learned counsel in which it is stated that the assessment order is a public document and certified copy can be put in evidence under Sections 74 and 65 of the Evidence Act. The learned counsel for the respondent has contested this contention and stated that the copies of the assessment order are not admissible per se. In my opinion u/s 65 of the Evidence Act, certified copies of the public documents are per se admissible in evidence. The Criminal Misc. is accepted to this extent that the certified copies of the assessment order be received in evidence.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. If the respondent wants to lead any evidence concerning these documents he may do so.

It is for the trial Court to record additional statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. if he comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to put the assessment order to them. Let the case be decided expeditiously especially within a period of six months. Copy of the order be given by the Bench Secretary dasti.