cross-examining him) was admitted as a proper deposition within the provisions of Act X of 1872, and the memorandum was taken under this section as evidence of the facts stated in it and as affording some evidence that the translation was correct. (f). The confession of a witness in the shape of a former deposition can be used as evidence against a prisoner only on the condition prescribed by sec. 249, Cr. P. Code (Act X of 1872); that is, it must have been duly taken by the committing officer in the presence of the person against whom it is to be used. The certificate of the Magistrate appended to such confession, in order to afford prima facie evidence under this section of the circumstances mentioned in it ralative to the taking of the statement, ought to give the facts necessary to render the deposition admissible under sec. 249-Queen v. Nussurdin, 21 W. R. (Cr.) 5. (g). The failure of the Civil Court in a case of perjury to make a memorandum of the evidence of the accused when examined before it does not vitiate the depositions, if the evidence itself was duly recorded in the language in which it was delivered in such Court-Behari Lal Bose and others, 9 W. R. (Cr.) 69. (h). A revenue official was charged with the offence of attempting to receive a bribe from certain raiyats who gave evidence for the prosecution, and he was convicted. He subsequently charged the raiyats with having conspired to bribe him, and in their trial their depositions in the previous case were tendered in evidence for the prosecution. Held, that the depositions should have been admitted in evidence-Queen-Empress v. Samiappa, I. L. R. 15 Mad. 63. (Vide case of The Queen v. Gopal Dass, I. L. R. 3 Mad. 271). Deposition of Medical Witness.--(a). Before the deposition of a medical witness taken by a committing Magistrate can, under sec. 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, be given in evidence at the trial before the Court of Session, it must either appear from the Magistrate's record, or be proved by the evidence of witnesses, to have been taken and attested by the Magistrate in the presence of the accused. The Court is neither bound to presume under this section, nor ought it to presume under sec. 114, ill. (e), that the deposition was so taken and attested. A Magistrate should take and attest a deposition in the presence of the accused, and should also, by the use of a few apt words on the face of the deposi tion, make it apparent that he has done so-Kachali Hari v. Queenr Empress, I. L. R. 18 Cal. 129. Vide also 1. Queen-Empress v. Riding, I. L. R. 9 All. 720. 2. Queen-Empress v. Pohp Singh, I.. L. R. 10 All. 174. Confession.-(a). A confession of an accused person recorded by the Magistrate of Bhind in Gwalior, was held admissible in evidence under this section and probably under sec. 74 ante, as against the person by whom it was made, when the said accused was on his trial in a British Court of Justice-Queen-Empress v. Sunder Singh and others, I. L. R. 12 All. 595. (b). As to recording confessions in English, vide 1, Queen-Empress v. Nilmadhab Mittra, I. L. R. 15 Cal. 595; 2, Queen-Empress v. Viran and others, I. L. R. 9 Mad. 224; 3, Empress v. Anantaram, I. L. R. 5 Cal. (F. B.) 954. Vide notes to secs. 29 and 33 ante. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament, and other documents. 81. The Court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London Gazette or the Gazette of India, or the Government Gazette of any Local Government, or of any colony, dependency or possession of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be a copy of a private Act of Parliament printed by the Queen's Printer, and of every document purporting to be a document directed by any law to be kept by any person if such document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is produced from proper custody. Proper Custody.-Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable. See explanation to sec. 90 post. Vide sec. 37 ante. 82. When any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be which, by the law in Presumption as to document admissible in EngJand without proof of seal or signature. a document force for the time being in England or Ireland, would be admissible in proof of any particular in any Court of Justice in England or Ireland, without proof of the sale or stamp or signature authenticating it, or of the judicial or official character claimed by the person by whom it purports to be signed, the Court shall presume that such seal, stamp or signature is genuine, and that the person signing it held, at the time when he signed it, the judicial or official character which he claims, and the document shall be admissible for the same purpose for which it would be admissible in England or Ireland. Documents which, under the Provisions of the English Statute Law, can be proved by certified Copies, and which are of likely occurrence in Indian Courts.-Registers of Births, Marriages and Deaths made pursuant to the Registration Act, 6 and 7 W. IV c. 86 ; Registers of Marriages of British Subjects which, since 28th July 1849, have been kept by British Consuls, and certified copies of which have been transmitted to the Registrar-General, 12 and 13 Vic. c. 68, sec. 11; Registers of British Ships and all declarations made under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, Part II, as to ownership, measurement, and registry of British Ships, 17 and 18 Vic. c. 104, sec. 107; the Regulations for preventing collisions at sea, and the rules concerning lights, fog-signals, steering and sailing may be proved either by the production of the Gazette in which any order in Council concerning them is published, or a copy of them purporting to be signed by one of the Secretaries or Assistant Secretaries to the Board, or to be sealed with the seal of the Board. Documents transmitted by shipping masters and officers of customs to the Registrar-General of Seaman, under 17 and 18 Vic. c. 104, sec. 277, may also be proved by a certified copy.-Taylor, sec. 1602. Documents receivable under English Law without Proof of Seal or Signature.- Vide 33 and 34 Vic. c. 52; 14 and 15 Vic, c. 99, sec. 7; sec. 2 of the Documentary Evidence Act, 8 and 9 Vic. c. 113; see 9 of Lord Brougham's Act, 14 and 15 Vic. c. 99. Vide also cl. 6, sec. 57 ante. 83. The Court shall presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the au Presumption as made by authority to maps or plans thority of Government were so made, and are accurate; but maps or plans of Government. made for the purposes of any cause must be proved to be accurate. Vide notes to sec. 36 ante. Accurate.-(a). The word accurate means accuracy of the drawing and correctness of the measurement. It certainly does not refer to laying boundaries according to the rights of parties-Omirta Lal Chowdhury v. Kali Persaud Saha, 25 W. R. 179. (b). The accuracy of a thackbust map must be presumed under this section--Niamatullah Khadim v. Himmut Ali Khadim, 22 W. R. 519. (c). The fact that a survey map, made by the authority of the Government, has been annulled and superseded by an order of the Board of Revenue, and that a fresh survey has been taken, and a map made in accordance therewith, does not affect the presumption allowed under this section, as to the accuracy of the former survey map-Juggeshur Singh v. Bycanta Nath Dutt, I. L. R. 5 Cal. 822. (d). The statements in thackbust map made at a revenue survey, of lands being debutter, appeared on the face of it to have been made as pointed out by agents on behalf of the proprietor of the mouzah and the principal tenants in the presence of the agents of the holders of estates in the neighbouring mouzahs. The Amin, who made the map, had to lay down boundaries, but had no authority to decide what lands were debutter. This section has not the effect of making those statements' evidence-Jurao Kumari v. Lalonmoni, I. L. R. 18 Cal. (P. C.) 224. Inadmissible Documents.-(a). Chittahs.—Chittahs made by Government for its own private use are nothing more than documents prepared for the information of the Collector, and are not evidence against private persons for the purpose of proving that the lands `described therein are of a particular description or tenure-Ram Chundra Sao v. Bunshidhar Naik, I. L. R. 9 Cal. 741. Map prepared by Government Officer in charge of Khas Mehal. —(a). A map prepared by an officer of Government while he was in charge of a Khas Mehal, the Government being in possession of that mehal merely as a private proprietor, does not come within the purview of this section. It cannot be presumed to be accurate, but it is admissible under sec. 13, as evidence of possession or assertion of right—Janmajai Mullick v. Dwarkanath Mahonti, I. L. R. 5 Cal. Presumption as 84. The Court shall presume the genuineness of every book purporting to be printed or published under the authority of the Government of any country, to collections of laws and reports of decisions. and to contain any of the laws of that country, and of every book purporting to contain reports of decisions of the Courts of such country. Vide Act XVIII of 1875 (The Indian Law Reports Act). Presumption as torney. 85. The Court shall presume that every document purporting to be a power-ofto powers-of-at- attorney, and to have been executed before, and authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, British Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative of Her Majesty or of the Government of India, was so executed and authenticated. The provisions of sec. 33, Act III of 1877 (Registration Act) as to powers-of-attorney recognized for the purposes of that Act, are not affected by the present Act. Notary Public.- Vide 41 Geo. III, Cap. 79; 3 and 4 Will. IV, Cap. 70; 6 and 7 Vic. Cap. 90, and 18 and 19 Vic. Cap. 42. The Negotiable Instruments Act, XXVI of 1881, provides for the appointment of persons by the Governor-General in Council to perform the functions of a Notary Public under the Act. (Secs. 3, 99, 100 and 102). (a). A registered power-of-attorney was admitted as evidence under Act I of 1872, sec. 57, without proof, the registering officer being a Court under sec. 3 of the Act-Krishna Koondoo v. T. F. Brown, I. L. R. 14 Cal. 176. This case has been dissented from in Salimatul Fatima v. Koylashpoti Narain Singh, I. L. R. 17 Cal. 903. Presumption as 86. The Court may presume that any document purporting to be a certified copy of of foreign judicial any judicial record of any country not forming part of Her Majesty's to certified copies records. |