CASE ANALYSIS

Bhogilal Chunnilal Pandya

v.
State of Bombay
- Anushka Sharma
Bench comprising of:

- WANCHOO, K.N.
- BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.
- SUBBARAO, K.

CITATION: 1959 AIR 356 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 310

CITATOR INFO : F 1966 SC 40 (5)

The Above case is a landmark judgement made by the appellant court with regards to the meaning of the word
‘statement’ and it admissibility under the Indian Evidence act. the judgement held that statements made by
persons may be used as admissions against them even though they may not have been communicated to any
other person.

The Brief Facts Of The Case

 Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya, the appellant was tried for committing criminal breach of trust in respect of
Rs 4,14,750 and the trial was with the aid of a jury.
 He was the cashier in the employment of Messrs Morarji Gokuldas Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd.,
Bombay and thus he was entrusted with the funds of the company.
 The charge against him was that between 1-7-1954 and 1-12-1954, he embezzled the amount
mentioned above.
 Among the witnesses for the prosecution were Gopikisan, Chairman, Modi, Secretary, and Santook, a
solicitor of the company.
 When the defalcation was discovered, certain conversations took place between Gopikisan, Modi and
Santook who was consulted in this connection, and the appellant, between 21 and 27-1-1955.
 Santook prepared what are called notes of attendance of these conversations soon afterwards.
 In his evidence in court, Santook deposed to what had taken place between him and these persons on
those dates.
 The notes of attendance marked Ext. V were also produced to corroborate the testimony of Santook.
 An objection was taken before the trial Judge to the admissibility of these notes on two grounds
mentioned later;
The trial judge initially rejected both these contentions and admitted the notes as evidence. He referred to them
in his charge to the jury. However, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty by a majority of 5 : 3.

The trial judge thereupon made a reference to the High Court under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1 .
The High Court went through the entire evidence, including Ex. V and found the case proved, and convicted the
appellant. Thus now, an Appeal is filed before the high court against the order of the high court.

Grounds for Appeal

(1) that they could not be admitted in evidence as copies had not been supplied to the accused
under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and
(2) that they could not be given in evidence under as corroboration of Santook's evidence.

Argument By the Appellant

- The counsel of the appellant challenged the decision of the High Court on the basis of section 173 of
criminal procedure code2 and the decision of the court in the case of Narayan Rao versus the state of
Andhra Pradesh3 he stated that these notes cannot be admitted in evidence under section 157 of the
Indian Evidence Act4.
- The counsel of the appellant contended that the word ‘statement made by’ in this section requires that
there must be a. communication of the statement according to the meaning of the section 157. And it
doesn’t not include any writing or memorandum made by a person for his own use when it is not
communicated to any other person but only as a means to refresh the memory of the witness under
section 159 of the act5 and;
- It does not become admissible as evidence unless the other party cross-examines the witness upon the
document under section 161 and in this case there was no such cross examination thus, he contended
that such writing can only be used under section 159 and cannot be called a statement within the
meaning of section 157, for it to be a statement according to section 157, there must be a
communication established with another person.

Observation of the Court.

1
307. Power to direct tender of pardon. At any time after commitment of a case but before judgment is passed, the Court to which the
commitment is made may, with a view to obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly
concerned in, or privy to, any such offence, tender a pardon on the same condition to such person.
2
http://devgan.in/crpc/section/173/
3
MANU/SC/0042/1957 : (1958) S.C.R. 283. 
4
In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact at or about the lime
when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.
5
A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction
concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his
memory.
The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read
it he knew it to be correct.
When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory— Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document,
he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document;
 - Meaning of the word statement has not been defined in the act so the bench referd to the dictionary
meaning or the literal meaning. according to the shorter Oxford English Dictionary and webster's new
world dictionary it was ‘something that is stated’ So, unless in section 157 or any other provision of
the act states the contrary to the primary meaning of the word, there is no point in holding
communication as a primary consideration.
- Acc to the words used in ss. 18 to 216 It is not disputed that statements made by persons may be used as
admissions against them even though they may not have been communicated to any other person (also
illustration (b) of sec 21)7
- s. 32(2)8 of the Act, shows that any entry or memorandum made in books kept in the ordinary course of
business or in the discharge of professional duty is a statement, and there is no question of
communicating. sub-section (6)9 shows that statements relating to the existence of an relationship made
in any will or deed relating to the affairs of the family are statements though there is no question of
their communication.
- Again, s. 3910 shows that a statement may be contained in a document which forms part of a book. In
this case also there is no question of any communication of that statement to another person in order to
make it a statement.
- s. 14511, which lays down that a witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him
in writing or reduced into writing for the purpose of contradicting him. Under this section a witness
may be contradicted by statements in a diary kept by him, though there is no question of any
communication of those statements to another person.
- Thus in s 15712, there is nothing which requires the element of communication to be imported in the
meaning of the word statement. It was stated that here the witness corroborate himself by producing
6
An admission may be proved by on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

7
A, the Captain of a ship, is tried for casting her away.
Evidence is given to show that the ship was taken out of her proper course.
A produces a book kept by him in the ordinary course of his business showing observations alleged to have been taken by him from day to
day, and indicating mat the ship was not taken out of her proper course. A may prove these statements, because they would be admissible
between third parties, if he were dead, under section 32, clause (2).

8
or is made in course of business: When the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when
it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional
duly; or of an acknowledgment written or signed by him of the receipt of money, goods, securities or property of any kind; or of a document
used in commerce written or signed by him; or of the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him.

9
or is made in will or deed relating to family affairs: When the statement relates to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage or
adoption between persons deceased, and is made in any will or deed relating to the affairs of the family to which any such deceased person
belonged, or in any family pedigree, or upon any tombstone, family portrait, or other thing on which such statements are usually made, and
when such statement was made before the question in dispute was raised.

10
When any statement of which evidence is given forms part of a longer statement, or of a conversation or part of an isolated document, or
is contained in a document which forms part of a book, or is contained in part of electronic record or a connected series of letters or papers,
evidence shall be given of so much and no more of the statement, conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or
papers as the Court considers necessary in that particular case to the full understanding of the nature and effect of the statement, and of the
circumstances under which it was made.
11
A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in
question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must,
before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.

12
In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact at or about the
lime when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.
 some writing that he kept in secret and thus it could be dangerous, so there should be distinction
between admissibility and its value and such value should be decided by the court in each case.
- The witness who is sought to be corroborated is produced in the witness-box and is liable to cross-
examination. The cross-examiner may show that no reliance should be placed on such an earlier
statement. The danger, therefore, the appellant emphasized is really no danger at all for the witness is
subject to cross examination. The main evidence is the statement of the witness in the witness box and
a document of this nature is only used to corroborate him. 
- The counsel of appellant referred to s 159 to show that such notes can only be used to refresh memory
and can be evidence under s 161 but he didn’t suggest what comes under s 159 is excluded from the
meaning of statement under s 157. Thus it cannot be said that if a document is used to refresh the
memory under 159, it cannot be a statement under 157 and thus Is completely unrelated in the purpose
of deciding the meaning of the word statement.
- Refreshing memory under s. 159 is confined to statements in writing made under the conditions
mentioned in that section. On a consideration, therefore, of the primary meaning of the word
`statement' ,`statement' under s. 157 means only 'something that is stated' and the element of
communication to another person is not necessary. In this view of the matter the notes of attendance
Would be statements within the 'meaning of. 157 and would be admissible to corroborate Santook's
evidence under s. 157.

The final judgemnt

As such the notes of attendance prepared by Santook were statements within the meaning of s. 157 and
admissible in evidence.

The result is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Conclusion
- The court had used the literal rule of Interpretation of the statute to understand the legislative intent
behind the use of the word ‘statement’, rather than going to any other interpretation that opted for
literal meaning because it is the meaning that is easily understood and considered with a man of normal
prudence to determine the meaning of the word, since no legislative intent was observed to state the
contrary to general meaning of the term.
- The judgement is highly appreciated as it very preciously was able to interpret the intention of the
legislature and could impart just explanation to the question of law as questioned by the counsel of
Appellant.
- The judgement recognised the document as statement and was allowed to be admissible before the
court of law and had it also a mean to corroborate the witnesses who made such statement but it also
didn’t put a straight jacket formula to identify its value in any case but stated that the value of
admissibility of such a document would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
- The judgement though it recognizes the document as an evidence but it holds the oral testimony of the
witness in the witness box as primary and main evidence while the document so produce are merely for
reference or corroboration of the witnesses claim in the court.