JUDGMENT : P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J. 1) Is a statement given before an Arbitral Tribunal a previous statement coming under Section 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? The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.25 of 2011 pending before the court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. PW1, Sri.R.Rajan, during cross-examination, was confronted with Ext.P5 statement. The learned Special Judge disallowed that request stating that provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were not applicable to the arbitration proceedings and the copy of the statement of PW1 before the Arbitral Tribunal was one obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. The said order is under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor (Vigilance). 3. Section 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 Section 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? 4. Section 74 of the Evidence Act describes “public document”. Whereas, a public document carries it with a presumption as allowed under Section 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? 4. Section 74 of the Evidence Act describes “public document”. It says that documents forming the acts or records of the acts of, inter alia, soverign authority official bodies and tribunals, public officer, legislative, judicial and executive are public documents. Section 74 reads: “74. Public documents.- The following documents are public documents :- (1) Documents forming the acts or records of the acts- (i) of the sovereign authority; (ii) of official bodies and tribunals; and (iii) of public officer, legislative, judicial and executive, of any part of India or of the Commonwealth or of a foreign country; (2) public records kept in any State of private documents.” 5. PW1 in C.C.No.25 of 2011 was examined as a witness before the Arbitral Tribunal also. The record of his statement is a document forming the acts of that Tribunal. Therefore, the statement of PW1 recorded by the Arbitral Tribunal, a copy of which is Ext.P5, is a public document. 6. Section 77 of the Evidence Act enables reception of a certified copy of a public document in proof of the contents of that document. How can a certified copy of a public document be issued is dealt with in Section 76 of the Evidence Act, which reads as follows: “76. Certified copies of public documents.- Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies. Explanation.- Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.” 7. Explanation.- Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.” 7. This provision lays down a standard method for certification as a true copy. It only says that a certificate written at the foot of the copy that the same is a true copy of the document kept by the public officer concerned along with date, name of the certifying officer and seal of the office is sufficient. Undoubtedly, if a particular procedure is prescribed by the rules applicable to the public officer, a certified copy issued by that officer shall be by following such rules. 8. Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act defines ‘information’, which reads:- “2(f) 'information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks. contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.” The said definition makes it clear that the record of a statement given before an Arbitral Tribunal, who indisputably is a public authority, is an information. A copy of such a statement is entitled to be inspected by every citizen subject to such limitations as may be prescribed in the Statute. 9. It has not been brought to my notice any format for certification of a copy or information as true copy as prescribed in the Right to Information Act or the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, a certification by the Public Information Officer or Central Information Officer on a copy as “true copy” along with date, name of the officer and seal of the office would be sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 76 of the Evidence Act. Hence, “true copy” of a public document issued by the Public Information Officer/Central Information Officer after certifying as true copy can be used in a court in proof of the contents of that document. It is also important to note that inasmuch as a public document, a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act concerning regularity in recording of the original statement is available. I reiterate that the above opinions are relating to public documents and not private documents. It is also important to note that inasmuch as a public document, a presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act concerning regularity in recording of the original statement is available. I reiterate that the above opinions are relating to public documents and not private documents. Insofar a private document is concerned, its contents require proof by a mode applicable to it for being used as evidence. The said view is fortified by the law laid down in Kumarpal N. Shah (supra). 10. Section 145 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: "145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.- 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." Section 145 of the Evidence Act enables a cross-examiner to contradict a witness with his previous statement. The purpose of such contradiction is to test the veracity of the witness as provided in Section 146 of the Evidence Act and to impeach credibility of that witness as provided in Section 155(3) of the Evidence Act. Of course, a former statement is also useful for corroborating the testimony of a witness in court under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. Corroboration under Section 157 is possible only if the former statement comes within either of the two categories mentioned therein. The question therefore is, for what purpose/s a former statement, a copy of which is obtained under the Right to Information Act, can be used? 11. As stated, a duly authenticated true copy of a statement given before an Arbitrator is a certified copy coming under Section 76 of the Evidence Act. Section 145 of the Evidence Act does not qualify a previous statement. It only states that “previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing and relevant to matters in question”. Therefore, any former statement which is relevant to matters in question can be used to contradict a witness. Section 145 of the Evidence Act does not qualify a previous statement. It only states that “previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing and relevant to matters in question”. Therefore, any former statement which is relevant to matters in question can be used to contradict a witness. Even the restriction created in Section 162 of the Code, that except where the witness is called by the prosecution, his statement under Section 161 of the Code cannot be used for any purpose, which include contradiction, is not applicable to a statement in question. The previous statement mentioned in Section 145 therefore has a wider connotation and takes in its fold statements other than that has been recorded under Section 161 of the Code, subject only that the same is relevant to the matters in question. 12. The Apex Court in Shri N.Sri Rama Reddy, etc. v. Shri V.V.Giri [ (1970) 2 SCC 340 ] considered a question whether a tape recorded conversation could be used for contradicting the witness under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Of course, it was an election petition and not a proceedings before a criminal court. Provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act are applicable equally to all kinds of trial. Therefore, the principle laid down in the said decision that such a previous statement can be used to contradict the witness is applicable here also. 13. In Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat [ AIR 1964 SC 1563 ], the Apex Court held that statements of a witness contained in letter, account book, deed, written statement, deposition, etc. come within the fold of “previous statement” in Section 145 of the Evidence Act. In that view of the matter, Ext.P5 statement certainly comes within the purview of Section 145 of the Evidence Act and can be used to contradict PW1 in C.C.No.25 of 2011. The said statement was given by PW1 before the Arbitrator with respect to the same dispute. Therefore, parts of Ext.P5 statement, which are relevant to matters in question can be used to contradict PW1 in C.C.No.25 of 2011. The purpose of such a contradiction, as pointed out above, is only to test his veracity or impeach his credibility. 14. Section 157 of the Evidence Act deals with corroboration of the testimony of a witness before the court using his former statement. Section 157 reads: “157. The purpose of such a contradiction, as pointed out above, is only to test his veracity or impeach his credibility. 14. Section 157 of the Evidence Act deals with corroboration of the testimony of a witness before the court using his former statement. Section 157 reads: “157. Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact.- 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 time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.” 15. The requirements of Section 157 are that the former statement must be relating to the same facts, and it should have been made at or any time when the facts took place or before an authority legally competent to investigate the fact. The ‘fact’ is defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. In the context of Section 157 the term fact has to be understood as the “fact in issue” and “relevant fact”. Therefore, if the former statement is relating to a fact in issue or relevant fact with reference to the trial at hand, the same can be used to corroborate under Section 157 of the Evidence Act. No doubt, only if such a statement is one either recorded at or about the time when the fact took place or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, it can be used for corroboration. 16. A reading of Ext. P5 it is clear that the facts stated in Ext.P5 before the Arbitrator are concerning the dispute about misappropriation in question as though it is not about the criminal aspect of such misappropriation. When the common aspect of misappropriation is subject of both proceedings, the facts stated in Ext. P5 to the extent it relates to such misappropriation and the connected matters are relevant to the questions at trial in C.C.No.25 of 2011. Therefore, Ext.P5 can be used for the purpose of both corroboration and contradiction to the extent mentioned above. 17. In view of what are stated above, the impugned order of the Special Judge declining permission to use Ext.P5 for contradicting PW1 in C.C.No.25 of 2011 is held to be wrong. The said order is set aside. The original petition is allowed as above.