SHAKYA VANSHYA DHARAM SHALA YAH DHARAMSHALA CHOUDHARY VALDEV SINGH SINGH JI KE SUPUTRA CHOUDHARY JUNGLEE SINGH SHATRIYA (Kachi) SABZI MANDI SHAHER DELHI MEIN TAIYAAR KARAYI.MITI PHALGUN SHUKLA 12 SAMVAT 1994 TAAREEKH 13 MARCH SAN 1938 EASVI +NOTE +DHARAMSHALA KI DUKAAN KAMRE VAGHARAH DHARAMSHALA VE MANDIR KE LIYE VAKHPH HAIN.
IS THIS A COINCIDENCE THAT I SHIFTED TO DELHI IN MAY 2003 IN UTTER HEINOUSNESS AND FILTH OF HOUSE NO 1513, OUTRAM LANE MADE BY LODHA KALRA ,WITH MY MONEY AND BANK LOAN AND WAS 38 YEARS OLD WHILE IN CHATTISGARH AND 39 IN DELHI MY DATE OF BIRTH BEING 1964 AND DLF KA IC SETHI GANGA RAM PSYCHIATRIST AND KUSHAL PAL SINGH HAVING SIMILAR FACES THAT A CASE WAS ALSO LISTED IN THE SUPREME COURT WITH SAME SYMBOLIC NUMBERS AS WELL AS AGAINST THE FILTHY GUTTER OF DLF.MY FATHER DIED ON 16-11-1994 AND THE BUILDER MAFIA WORD CONTRACTOR IS ALSO THERE.
See full-size image.
SLP(C)No. 938 OF 2003
Court No. 5
S U P R E M E C O U R T
I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal
(From the judgement and order dated
of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N. DELHI)
BIRLA VXL LTD.
DLF UNIVERSAL LTD.
(With prayer for interim relief)
Date : 03/02/2003 This Petition was called on for
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. LAHOTI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH KUMAR
For Petitioner (s) Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. L.K. Bhushan, Adv.
Ms. Jasleen Oberoi, Adv.
Mrs. Shiraz Contractor Patodia,Adv.
For Respondent (s) Mr. J.C. Seth, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
List on 4.2.2003.
( P.D. Balodi )
( Radha R. Bhatia )
the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra. Above: Zubin Mehta,
music director for life.
336 x 338 - 84k
Image may be scaled down and subject to copyright.
Regd. & Head Office
# 24 , Whites Road
United India Insurance Company Limited was incorporated as a Company on 18th February 1938. General Insurance Business in India was nationalized in 1972. 12 Indian Insurance Companies, 4 Cooperative Insurance Societies and Indian operations of 5 Foreign Insurers, besides General Insurance operations of southern region of Life Insurance Corporation of India were merged with United India Insurance Company Limited. After Nationalization United India has grown by leaps and bounds and has 18300 work force spread across 1340 offices providing insurance cover to more than 1 Crore policy holders. The Company has variety of insurance products to provide insurance cover from bullock carts to satellites.
United India has been in the forefront of designing and implementing complex covers to large customers, as in cases of ONGC Ltd , GMR- Hyderabad International Airport Ltd, Mumbai International Airport Ltd Tirumala-Tirupati Devasthanam etc. We have been also the pioneer in taking Insurance to rural masses with large level implementation of Universal Health Insurance Programme of Government of India & Vijaya Raji Janani Kalyan Yojana ( covering 45 lakhs women in the state of Madhya Pradesh) , Tsunami Jan Bima Yojana (in 4 states covering 4.59 lakhs of families) , National Livestock Insurance and many such schemes.
We have also made our presence in more than 200 tier II & II towns and villages through our innovative Micro Offices.
From: "mamta dhody"
Subject: NATURE'S CASINO
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
From: "mamta dhody"
Subject: NATURE'S CASINO
From: "mamta dhody kalra"
Subject: NATURE'S CASINO
From: "mamta dhody kalra"
Subject: NATURE'S CASINO
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, S.Sonowal@sansad.nic.in, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
From: "mamta dhody kalra"
Subject: NATURE'S CASINO
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
CC: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, vc@Kumuni.ren.nic.in, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, JUCL@ginsc101.vsnl.net.in, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, dgd@JADAV.ERNET.in, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
From: "mamta dhody kalra"
Subject: NATURE'S CASINO
To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
CC: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, SP.Mustafa@unilever.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Paresh.Chaudhry@unilever.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
From: "mamta kalra"
Subject: NATURE'S CASINO
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Jsecps@hotmail.com, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
A RICH TRIBUTE TO MR.JAGDISH CHANDRA
DHODY OF UNITED
ON HIS 13TH DEATH ANNIVERSAY
REFERENCE :-Business Standard-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •
Jump to: navigation, search
Catastrophe bonds (also known as cat bonds) are risk-linked securities that transfer a specified set of risks from the sponsor to the investors. They are often structured as floating-rate corporate bonds whose principal is forgiven if specified trigger conditions are met. They are typically used by insurers as an alternative to traditional catastrophe reinsurance.
For example, if an insurer has built up a portfolio of risks by insuring properties in
• 1 History
• 2 Investors
• 3 Ratings
• 4 Structure
• 5 Trigger types
• 6 Market participants
• 7 Patents
• 8 References
• 9 External links
• 10 See also
The notion of securitizing catastrophe risks became prominent in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, notably in work published by Richard Sandor, Ken Froot and a group of professors at the
It should be possible to adapt these instruments to other contexts. Professor Lawrence Cunningham of George Washington University suggests adapting cat bonds to the risks that large auditing firms face in cases asserting massive securities law damages. Lawrence A. Cunningham, Securitizing Audit Failure Risk: An Alternative to Damages Caps, William & Mary Law Review (2007) It does not appear that Professor Cunningham is seeking to patent his idea as an invention, although that it is not clear.
Investors choose to invest in catastrophe bonds because their return is largely uncorrelated with the return on other investments in fixed income or in equities, so cat bonds help investors achieve diversification. Investors also buy these securities because they generally pay higher interest rates (in terms of spreads over funding rates) than comparably rated corporate instruments as long as they are not triggered.
Key categories of investors who participate in this market include hedge funds, specialized catastrophe-oriented funds and asset managers. Life insurers, reinsurers, banks, pension funds and other investors have also participated in offerings.
A number of specialized catastrophe-oriented funds play a significant role in the sector, including Clariden Leu Ltd, Credit Suisse Asset Management, Fermat Capital Management, Nephila, Stark, Securis, Coriolis, Banque AIG, Solidum, Pentalia, Goldman Sachs Asset Management and others.
Cat bonds are often rated by an agency such as Standard & Poor's, Moody's, or Fitch Ratings. A typical corporate bond is rated based on its probability of default due to the issuer going into bankruptcy. A catastrophe bond is rated based on its probability of default due to an earthquake or hurricane triggering loss of principal. This probability is determined with the use of catastrophe models. Most catastrophe bonds are rated below investment grade (BB and B category ratings) and the various rating agencies have recently moved toward a view that securities must require multiple events before occurrence of a loss in order to be rated investment grade.
Most catastrophe bonds are issued by special purpose reinsurance companies domicilied in the
Some bonds cover the risk that multiple losses will occur. The first second event bond (Atlas Re) was issued in 1999. The first third event bond (Atlas II) was issued in 2001. Subsequently, bonds triggered by fourth through ninth losses have been issued. Such transactions generally cover a the portfolio of a single cedant or fixed arrays of events. The first actively managed pool of bonds and other contracts ("Catastrophe CDO") called Gamut was issued in 2007 with Nephila as the asset manager.
 Trigger types
The sponsor and investment bank who structure the cat bond must choose how the principal impairment is triggered. Cat bonds can be categorized into four basic trigger types. The trigger types listed first are more correlated to the actual losses of the insurer sponsoring the cat bond. The trigger types listed farther down the list are not as highly correlated to the insurer's actual losses, so the cat bond has to be structured carefully and properly calibrated, but investors would not have to worry about the insurer's claims adjustment practices.
Indemnity: triggered by the issuer's actual losses, so the sponsor is indemnified, as if they had purchased traditional catastrophe reinsurance. If the layer specified in the cat bond is $100 million excess of $500 million, and the total claims add up to more than $500 million, then the bond is triggered.
Modeled loss: instead of dealing with the company's actual claims, an exposure portfolio is constructed for use with catastrophe modeling software, and then when there is a large event, the event parameters are run against the exposure database in the cat model. If the modeled losses are above a specified threshold, the bond is triggered.
Indexed to industry loss: instead of adding up the insurer's claims, the cat bond is triggered when the insurance industry loss from a certain peril reaches a specified threshold, say $30 billion. The cat bond will specify who determines the industry loss; typically it is a recognized agency like PCS. "Modified index" linked securities customize the index to a company's own book of business by weighting the index results for various territories and lines of business.
Parametric: instead of being based on any claims (the insurer's actual claims, the modeled claims, or the industry's claims), the trigger is indexed to the natural hazard caused by nature. So the parameter would be the windspeed (for a hurricane bond), the ground acceleration (for an earthquake bond), or whatever is appropriate for the peril. Data for this parameter is collected at multiple reporting stations and then entered into specified formulae. For example, if a typhoon generates windspeeds greater than X meters per second at 50 of the 150 weather observation stations of the Japanese Meteorological Agency, the cat bond is triggered.
 Market participants
This article does not cite any references or sources. (July 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
Examples of cat bond sponsors include insurers, reinsurers, corporations and government agencies. Over time, frequent issuers have included USAA,
To date, all direct catastrophe bond investors have been institutional investors since all broadly distributed transactions have been distributed in that format. These have included specialized catastrophe bond funds, hedge funds, investment advisors (money managers), life insurers, reinsurers, pension funds and others. Individual investors have generally purchased such securities through specialized funds.
Examples of investment banks and other dealers that are active in the issuance of catastrophe bonds are ABN Amro, Aon Capital Markets, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, Goldman Sachs, MMC Securities Corp., Lehman Brothers, Willis Capital Markets, and Swiss Re Capital Markets. Some of these groups also make secondary markets in these bonds. Most bond offering documents include an expert modeling analysis, with the bulk of these being prepare by AIR, EQEcat and Risk Management Solutions.
Numerous law firms have been active in this space, notably Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.
There are a number of issued
 External links
1. IQPC's 2nd Insurance Linked Securities
2. General information website on insurance securitizations (by Okubo)
3. Article "Applications of Insurance Securitization" (
4. Article on Insurance Derivatives (by Alex Krutov)
5. Presentation by Diego Rangel
6. Mad scramble for capital fuels cat bond market
7. Conference on Insurance- and Risk-Linked Securities (the Bond Markets Association)
8. In Nature's Casino (by Michael Lewis)
 See also
• Catastrophe modeling
• Fixed income
• Risk management
• Captive insurance
• Alternative Risk Transfer
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_bond
Categories: Articles lacking sources from July 2007 | All articles lacking sources | Bonds | Offshore finance | Insurance | Types of insurance
Sasha Bezzubov for The New York Times
Courting destruction in
But there was an exception: an American so improbably prepared for the havoc Tropical Depression 12 was about to wreak that he might as well have planned it. His name was John Seo, he was 39 years old and he ran a hedge fund in
Whatever image pops to mind when you hear the phrase “hedge fund manager,” Seo (pronounced so) undermines it. On one hand, he’s the embodiment of what Wall Street has become: quantitative. But he’s quirky. Less interested in money and more interested in ideas than a Wall Street person is meant to be. He inherited not money but math. At the age of 14, in 1950, his mother fled
His parents had raised him to think, but his thoughts were interrupted once he left Harvard. His wife was pregnant with their second child, and the health plan at
His parents, he suspected, would be appalled. They had sacrificed a lot for his academic career. In the late 1980s, if you walked into the Daylight Donuts shop in
A willingness to upset one’s mother is usually a promising first step to a conventional Wall Street career. But Seo soon turned Wall Street into his own private science lab, and his continued interest in deep questions mollified even his father. “Before he got into it, I strongly objected,” Tae Kun Seo says. “But now I think he’s not just grabbing money.” He has watched his son quit one firm to go to work for another, but never for a simple promotion; instead, John has moved to learn something new. Still, everywhere he goes, he has been drawn to a similar thorny problem: the right price to charge to insure against potential losses from extremely unlikely financial events. “Tail risk,” as it is known to quantitative traders, for where it falls in a bell-shaped probability curve. Tail risk, broadly speaking, is whatever financial cataclysm is believed by markets to have a 1 percent chance or less of happening. In the foreign-exchange market, the tail event might be the dollar falling by one-third in a year; in the bond market, it might be interest rates moving 3 percent in six months; in the stock market, it might be a 30 percent crash. “If there’s been a theme to John’s life,” says his brother Nelson, “it’s pricing tail.”
Michael Lewis is a contributing writer. The paperback edition of his book “The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game” will be published next month.
To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry.
· New Orleans Flood Plan Upgrade Urged (
· Editor Acts, and 10 Time Inc. Magazines Revisit Katrina (
· The Katrina Effect, Measured in Gigs (
· Louisiana: Hospital Executives Testify Before Congress (
Benjamin McLane Spock (May 2, 1903 – March 15, 1998) was an American pediatrician whose book Baby and Child Care, published in 1946, is one of the biggest best-sellers of all time. Its revolutionary message to mothers was that "you know more than you think you do." Spock was the first pediatrician to study psychoanalysis to try to understand children's needs and family dynamics. His ideas about childcare influenced several generations of parents to be more flexible and affectionate with their children, and to treat them as individuals, whereas the previous conventional wisdom had been that child rearing should focus on building discipline, and that, e.g., babies should not be "spoiled" by picking them up when they cried.
Spock with his granddaughter, Susannah, in 1967
|Born||May 2, 1903(1903-05-02)|
New Haven, Connecticut
|Died||March 15, 1998 (aged 94)|
La Jolla, California
In 1962, Spock joined The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, otherwise known as SANE. Spock was politically outspoken and active in the movement to end the Vietnam War. In 1968, he and four others (including William Sloane Coffin) were singled out for prosecution by then Attorney General Ramsey Clark on charges of conspiracy to counsel, aid, and abet resistance to the draft. Spock and three of his alleged co-conspirators were convicted, although the five had never been in the same room together. His two-year prison sentence was never served; the case was appealed and in 1969 a federal court set aside his conviction.
In 1967, Spock was to be nominated as Martin Luther King, Jr.'s vice-presidential running mate at the National Conference for New Politics over Labor Day weekend in Chicago. According to William F. Pepper's Orders to Kill, however, the conference was broken up by agents provocateurs working for the government.
Spock was the People's Party candidate in the 1972 United States presidential election with a platform that called for free medical care, the repeal of "victimless crime" laws, including the legalization of abortion, homosexuality, and marijuana, a guaranteed minimum income for families and the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from foreign countries. In the 1970s and 1980s, Spock demonstrated and gave lectures against nuclear weapons and cuts in social welfare programs.
In 1972, Spock, Julius Hobson (his Vice Presidential candidate), Linda Jenness (Socialist Workers Party Presidential candidate), and Socialist Workers Party Vice Presidential candidate Andrew Pulley wrote to Major General Bert A. David, commanding officer of Fort Dix, asking for permission to distribute campaign literature and to hold an election-related campaign meeting. On the basis of Fort Dix regulations 210-26 and 210-27, General David refused the request. Spock, Hobson, Jenness, Pulley, and others then filed a case that ultimately made its way to the United States Supreme Court (424 U.S. 828 -- Greer, Commander, Fort Dix Military Reservation, et al., v. Spock et al), which ruled against the plaintiffs.
424 U.S. 828:
 Views on gender
Spock embraced women's and girls' equality relatively early. Editions of Baby and Child Care issued in the mid-1970s were edited to refer to babies and children as "she" about half the time. This was a departure from the norm at that time. Especially among established authors of Spock's age, there was still a strong school of thought claiming that the pronoun "he" was correct for all persons unless speaking of a specific female or female matters. Spock's book was the first major/mainstream book to abandon that view and usage.
Dr Benjamin Spock and Mary
Morgan aboard one of their boats.
(Photo used with kind permission
of Mary Morgan.)
Mary Morgan was born Mary Morgan Wright in
She worked in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Arkansas Medical School as programme coordinator for continuing education. This is when she met Dr Spock, when he came to speak in
Morgan invited Dr Spock to give a workshop on the ‘Uses and Abuses of Power’ in 1970 in
They were arrested many times together for their various demonstrations against the Vietnam War and nuclear power plants. They lived on boats most of their lives together: one boat in
After Dr Spock’s death in 1998, Morgan founded the Dr Spock Company, and built the DrSpock.com website. She found a co-author, Dr Robert Needlman at University Hospitals in Cleveland, and revised Dr Spock’s Baby and Child Care, published by Pocket Books. She took up surfing in
Dr Spock’s legacy lives on with his latest edition of Baby and Child Care, and the website. Also Morgan presented the Dr Spock Award of Compassion in
Shri Arvinder Singh Lovely
HON'BLE MINISTER OF EDUCATION & TOURISM, LANGUAGES,
GURDWARA ELECTIONS & GURDWARA ADMINISTRATION
Shri Arvinder Singh Lovely, s/o Balvinder Singh, was born on 11.12.1968. He has done his graduation from Delhi University in Political Science. While he was in the college he was elected to Students' Union of SGTB Khalsa College (Morning ). It was during his college life he was actively involved with various social organizations.
He was appointed General Secretary, Delhi Pradesh Youth Congress in the year 1990 and during the year 1992-1996, he was appointed General Secretary of All India NSUI.
For the first time in 1998 he was elected to Delhi Legislative Assembly. As MLA he was not only actively associated with the formulation of several Govt. Policies but, also engaged with several social and academic organizations. He was also entrusted with the responsibility of the Chairman of Bhimrao Ambedkar College, Delhi. It is because of his excellent track record as MLA, he was given Best legislative Award for the year 2000. He was appointed Gen. Secretary, Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee in 2000, and President, East District Congress Committee (I).
In the year 2003, he was re-elected to Delhi Legislative Assembly by getting 73.53 % of the total number of polled votes, which is the highest among all the 70 constituencies of Delhi Legislative Assembly. For the first time he has given the responsibilities of Education, Tourism, Languages, Gurdwara Election & Gurdwara Administration Minister, in the Council of Ministers of Govt. of Delhi.
LAW AND JUDICIARY,RAMRAJYA AMERICA AND RUSSIA,POLITICIANS OF DAYANAND AND BRITAIN AND 13TH SAMSKARA OF MARRIAGE OF HINDUS
|See full-size image.|
300 x 260 - 47k
Booking the Bourgeoisie:
The Niyogi Murder Trial
Comrade Shankar Guha Niyogi, the popular trade union leader of Chattisgarh, was murdered in his sleep on the night of
The trial court after examining all witnesses and hearing all the arguments convicted Moolchand Shah, Chandrakant Shah, Naveen Shah, besides Gyan Prakash Mishra, Avdhesh Rai Abhai Singh and Paltan Mallah. Paltan Mallah who actually committed the murder was sentenced to death while the others who conspired and masterminded the crime were given life sentences and fined.
This was the first time in history that a conspiracy by capitalists to kill a trade union leader was established in a court of law and the capitalists were convicted. As such it marks a milestone in the working class history, especially in the legal aspects of the labour movement.
As was to be expected the convicted appealed in the High Court. Here again in a departure from convention K.G. Kannabiran - a leading civil right activist lawyer with known sympathies for the workers' and peasants' movements was commissioned by the CBI to argue the prosecution's case. After going through the arguments the High Court set aside the judgement of the lower court in toto for want of sufficient evidence.
The matter is now with the Supreme Court.
In the following pages we will examine the case in greater detail and discuss some of the issues it throws for the working class movement.
The Importance of the Niyogi Murder Trial
Niyogi was not the first or the last trade unionist to be murdered. His murder was in fact followed by the murder of another popular unionist of
In other words the present legal framework is highly inadequate to book and punish capitalists indulging in terror tactics and the physical liquidation of labour leaders. It is therefore necessary to break new ground without at the same time compromising the principle of the democratic rights of the accused persons. It is in this context that the Niyogi murder trial assumes great importance.
At the trial court the prosecution marshalled much evidence to support its case though as we shall see it did leave a few stones unturned in the case. The credit for breaking new ground really goes to the judge Sh. T.K. Jha who creatively interpreted the law in the difficult situation. We must also recognise the important role played by thousands who attended the trial sessions and effectively conveyed to the judge what the jury of the working people thought of the case. Their presence added considerable weight to the prosecution's case.
The Prosecution's Case
The prosecution built its case against the accused capitalists on the following basis:
(I.) The struggle under Niyogi's leadership of the workers of the factories owned by the capitalists had caused serious loss to them and therefore they had a motive in seeing him dead. (II.) They had adopted extra-legal terror tactics to combat the growing power of the union - and the murder was a logical follow-up. (III.) They had closely monitored the movements of Niyogi with an intent to attack him. (IV.) Shortly before his death Niyogi had gathered information that his life was in serious danger from them and he had said so to a journalist of national standing and also recorded his apprehension in a tape-recorded message to his comrades. (V.) The alleged hired assassin had implicated them in his extra-judicial confessions. (VI.) The behaviour of the accused -absconding and escaping from custody indicated their involvement in the crime.
We shall take each of these points by quoting extensively from the judgement of the trial court.
I. The judgement says,
'When deceased Niyogi came to Bhilai in 1990 and began agitation of workers there the Simplex Group had been most affected. The largest number of members of CMM had been dismissed by the Simplex Group. Civil suits were filed on behalf of Simplex Industry in which it was stated that due to the strike of Shankar Guha Niyogi this industry was having lakhs of rupees of loss...
'The accused Moolchand Shah was not even prepared to accept the demand letter of CMM...
'This accused had not gone to the meetings called by the Assistant Labour Commissioner for the resolution of the labour problem.' (
'This agitation by Niyogi had become as unbearable to the Simplex group as the scorching sun in summer and ultimately they got the accused Paltan who by murdering Niyogi .. proved to be a source of solace.' (
The judgement established the fact that Niyogi and CMM were trying to regularise the employment of the workers and to ensure a 'living wage' for them and to win for them the freedom to organize. It is these that the Simplex Group was most disturbed about and fought tooth and nail to resist. Further, knowing that any serious participation in tripartite negotiations leading to resolution of the issue would legitimise and strengthen the union the Shahs avoided such negotiations as far as possible.
Instead they sought to intimidate the workers through extra-legal means. To quote the judgement again, 'during the movement the industrialists started sponsoring murderous attacks on the workers of CMM.' (
The prosecution sought to establish though somewhat tenuously that the Shahs were behind the attacks on several union leaders like Umashankar Rai and had planned attacks on others like Bharat Bhushan Pandey.
Moolchand Shah had with him the addresses of Umashankar Rai and Bharat Bhushan Pandey, who had been attacked or had formally expressed apprehension of an attack to the police.
An important evidence in the case was a confidential note found at Moolchand Shah's place on how to combat Niyogi and the CMM. It outlines several strategies to be followed simultaneously in order to discredit Niyogi personally, foster rival unions, implicate union leaders in false cases and demoralisation of union members. However it does not mention any plan to kill Niyogi and takes care not to outline any openly extra-legal measures. Nevertheless when one reads the document in conjunction with the actual conduct of the capitalists it is clear that they were keen to achieve the objectives through a combination of legal and extra-legal measures. The note even if it does not reveal any criminal intent is clear in setting out the objective of decimating the trade union movement led by Niyogi.
The prosecution further tried to establish the fact that the industrialists were keenly following the movements of the union leaders especially Niyogi. A piece of paper containing the registration number of the car used by Niyogi was found with the accused industrialist. While this in itself may be innocuous seen along with the other developments this assumes some significance. The industrialists were certainly trying to keep track of Niyogi's movements.
The most crucial evidence produced by the prosecution was the apprehension repeatedly expressed by Niyogi during the last week of his life and even a few hours before he was murdered.
The judgement of the trial court reads, 'In the afternoon of 27-9-91 Niyogi had told the journalist N.K. Singh (of India Today - CNS) that the industrialists of Bhilai have organised a private army and used their goondas to crush the worker's movement. He had also said that the Shahs of Simplex wanted to get him killed.' He had expressed similar apprehension to Rajendra Sail a few hours before his murder.
Niyogi had also recorded a message during these days for his comrades in case he was killed. He said, 'I know these people are after my life. I know it well that .... they shall kill me. Yet I know that by killing me no one can finish our movement.' Thereafter he specifically names, 'the people of Simplex' especially Moolchand Shah, Prabhnath Mishra, a friend of Shantilal Jain, Kedia. 'My belief is that Moolchand Shah and Kedia .. only are at this time behind all the conspiracies... And therefore I am getting my-heart felt feelings taped because perhaps very soon something is going to happen.' The prosecution wanted this statement to be treated as the dying declaration of Niyogi.
This was no empty demagogy or a generalised fear as Niyogi elsewhere had pointed out that the industrialists were preparing for a major violent offensive and he was sure of an impending attack. He had noted in his diary the information that Gyan Prakash had received 5 lakhs from Simplex to purchase firearms and hire some goondas from Siwan district. In this connection he mentions the names of Chandrakant Shah, Awadhesh and others. A few weeks before the attack he had met the President of India and expressed his apprehensions. He repeated it to N.K. Singh twice during the interview on the day of his death and had been warning his close associates too. All this clearly indicates that he had definite information that these named industrialists were planning to liquidate him and other leaders of CMM. These statements of Niyogi were also accepted by the trial court as implicating the industrialists.
The clinching evidence against the industrialists was the non-judicial confession made by the alleged assassin Paltan Mallah to his relatives. While he was in hiding after the murder of Niyogi he had told his relatives that he had murdered Niyogi for money and that the Shah brothers- Moolchand, Navin and Chandrakant were behind this. Paltan Mallah had fled from Bhilai and was on the run in Uttar Pradesh and
The prosecution also cited two more grounds for implicating Chandrakant Shah. Firstly it was firmly established that at the height of the labour movement he had gone along with Gyan Prakash, Avdesh Rai, and Abhay Singh to
The trial court after going through all this evidence decided that indeed the industrialists of Bhilai were behind the murder of Niyogi. They were duly awarded life terms and a fine of 10 lakh rupees.
As can be seen from the above, on a number of points the prosecution was on weak grounds. Indeed each piece of evidence seen separately could be seen to be innocuous or doubtful. However given the difficulty in proving such conspiracies and by seeing all the evidences in conjunction with each other the conclusion that the said industrialists conspired to kill Niyogi could not be escaped.
In this the trial court was influenced by the conviction that Niyogi and his union were fighting for the legitimate rights of the workers and the industrialists were trying to deny workers their legitimate dues by hook or crook. 'Thus the industrialists were not prepared to give their workers a place of equality and situation of class struggle was created' (para 353).
It was this conviction strengthened by the presence of workers in the trial proceedings that led the judge to piece together the evidence the way he did.
'Deceased Shankar Guha Niyogi was a labour leader of national stature. He was brutally murdered only because of leading the labour movement in Bhilai.' (
The High Court Judgement
This is in sharp contrast to the attitude of the High Court which set aside the above judgement. Para 39 of its judgement reads as follows, 'Evidence given by police officers... as well as copies of plaints... only show that Niyogi was creating trouble for the Simplex Group.' 'Accused Moolchand Shah was resisting him in a lawful manner by starting legal proceedings.' (
About the confidential note on combatting Niyogi the high court says, it 'reaffirms that .... rival trade unions be given importance, that the criminal cases pending against Niyogi in different courts be pursued and that the foreign link of Niyogi be traced and published....This too rules out that there was a scheme to physically eliminate him.'The court completely ignores the evidences gathered about the attitude of the management to the legitimate demands of the workers' union.
The High Court further rejected the apprehensions of Niyogi on what clearly appear to be specious grounds. Regarding the diary entry it says, 'evidently this entry contains allegations about some persons hired from Siwan district. It also says that the plot was foiled. It is also significant that accused Paltan has nothing to do with Siwan district and has not been named in this diary.' (
Regarding the apprehensions expressed in the tape-recorded message and the interview to NK Singh it says, 'It also names Simplex and Kedia as the persons behind the conspiracy against him. We agree that nothing turns on these documents ... if Niyogi had apprehensions from the Shahs of Simplex, he had also expressed the same fear from other industrialists also...' (para 110-114). In other words the apprehensions of Niyogi that the industrialists of Bhilai especially the Shahs were planning to get him killed were set aside simply on the ground that he had felt that he was under threat from Kedia besides the Shahs.
Similarly the court takes up each piece of evidence gathered examines it in isolation and dismisses it as 'not incriminating'. The High Court also refused to accept the prosecution's plea regarding Paltan Mallah and concluded that he was being framed by the CBI, that the instrument of crime (a country-made pistol) was not recovered from him and that he had not made any confession at all. Likewise it also concluded that his alleged statement implicating the industrialists was concocted by the CBI. It also rejected the evidence of the ballistic expert that the instrument recovered from Paltans' relatives' house was the same as the one with which Niyogi was fired at.
As we had pointed out earlier the evidence that could be gathered against the industrialists could not be foolproof or absolutely convincing. Yet given the circumstances it did indicate a very strong possibility of the complicity of the named industrialists in the murder of Niyogi. The strength of the prosecution lay in establishing the motive for the crime, the previous build up for criminal assault on the union leaders and Niyogi's consequent apprehension stated and recorded in various ways. It also managed to establish as far as it was possible the evidence for the industrialists' complicity in the crime. This evidence may not have been strong enough but has to be seen in conjunction with the other factors established fairly clearly.
It would seem from the above that given the present frame of criminal law industrialists can get away with murder of union leaders and more with a little care. It is therefore likely to encourage more such acts of violence against the labour movement. It is therefore imperative for the trade union movement across the country to exert pressure on the judiciary to force it to redefine criminal law in regard to violence against trade unionists. To a modest degree this was achieved by the working class of Chattisgarh when the trial court judge in effect accepted the substantial arguments of the CMM. However much more concerted pressure at the national level is necessary to build judicial precedents. Secondly it also demonstrates the need for the trade union movement to build an intelligence network of its own to conduct investigations and build strong cases against the criminal industrialists and their hirelings.
Click here to return to the April 1999 index.
CHRONICLE OF A MURDER ACQUITTAL FORETOLD
by Rakesh Shukla
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court acquitted Moolchand Shah owner of
Simplex industries and Chandrakant Shah owner of Oswal Iron and Steel
Private Ltd in the Shankar Guha Niyogi murder case. The wheels of justice
having ground have spewed forth the conviction of Palton Mallah for the
murder. Palton is a young man from
Bhilai region. He had neither any connection nor any animosity towards
Niyogi. Palton was the hired killer. No one has even remotely suggested any
reason why Palton Mallah acting on his own should kill Niyogi. The
conviction of the two industrialists by the trial court appears to be the
only appears to be the only instance of the punishment of someone powerful
for the murder of a social crusader fighting for the exploited.
Niyogi known for his brilliant combination of struggle with constructive
work, was shot dead at Bhilai in Chattisgarh on
audio tape discovered within days of his assassination by his children,
Niyogi named Moolchand Shah, Kailashpati Kedia of the Chattisgarh
Distelleries and an IG of police as persons conspiring to eliminate him. The
"contract killing" of Niyogi was ordered because he was organizing the
contract workers and demanding implementation of labour laws. The first
charter of demands submitted by Niyogi to Simplex asked for work an
eight-hour working day, regularization of contract work for work of a
permanent nature, living wages, safety appliances, medical and earned leave.
The industrialists reacted by dismissing 4,200 workers. In addition, attacks
were launched on workers by hired thugs.
As per a document seized from the house of Moolchand Shah, an "action plan
tocombat Niyogi" was formulated. Pressure was brought to bear and in
February 1991 Niyogi was arrested. In July 1991, proceedings to extern
Niyogi from Chattisgarh were initiated. However, both these attempts failed
to check the workers movement. This failure of the arrest and externment
seems to have led to the conspiracy which resulted in Niyogi's
assassination. On the basis of ballistic evidence, incriminating documents,
extra-judicial confessions, witnesses, Niyogi's cassette and diaries, the
trial court convicted Moolchand Shah, Chandrakant Shah, the hired assassin
Palton Mallah and three others of murder.
The audio tape and entries in the diary by Niyogi naming individuals
responsible for his death have been taken by the apex court to be of no
particular relevance on the specious reasoning that they "do not refer to an
event which ultimately was the cause of his death". Under Article 32(1) of
the Evidence Act in addition to statements as to cause of death even
statements "as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted
in his death" are also relevant facts in case the person is dead. The
cassette in Niyogi's voice and entries in the diary do indicate
circumstances of the transaction which led to his murder.
made firearms on the back of old hotel bills have also been held to not
further the conspiracy on the ground that, "No bills proving purchase of
foreign-made weapons were recovered from any of these accused persons".
There is little chance that a purchase of firearms in
Watching the movements of a person to work out the best time and opportunity
to eliminate him seems to be something of a standard operating procedure for
assassinations. Recovery of slips from the accused bearing the registration
of the car and jeep being used by Niyogi indicating surveillance by them
have been discarded with a bald, "We are not able to attach any further
importance to these documents". Similarly recovery of a letter from one of
the accused on the day of the murder to another accused stating that Rs
20,000/- had been paid for the job has been held to show that there was
"some money transaction betweenthe second accused and the sixth accused" and
not in any way establishing that it was "consideration for the illegal act
carried out at the instance of the second accused".
The award, as part payment for the assassination, of the contract of a
parking stand in Maurya Talkies has been held to be innocuous. Even
absconding by the accused, generally taken as a sign of guilt, has been
explained away as understandable in view of the murder of a trade union
leader and allegations against the industrialists. Observing that
extra-judicial confession by Palton Mallah naming the industrialists has
only corroborative value, the Court declaring that there is no substantive
evidence acquitted the main persons responsible for the murder.
In a case of circumstantial evidence, there is no direct evidence of
eye-witnesses to the murder. It is the weaving together of the factum of
financial loss due to agitations led by Niyogi, the watching of his
movements, the trip to
entries in the diary naming individuals, payment of Rs 20,000/- and the
absconding taken together which do seem to establish a conspiracy as held by
the trial court.
The workers of Chattisgarh have struggled for decades for the rights that
are theirs as per the laws of the land. The acquittal of the industrialists
is far more than a verdict in a criminal case of murder. Faith in the rule
of law and the direction of the struggles of the workers is bound to be
impacted by the judgement.
Return to the The South Asia Labour Activists Library > www.sacw.net
Psychiatry (Mental problems)
Dr. I. C. Sethi
His plan leaked and he was summoned. The colonel in charge
Department of Psychiatry
Special Training: National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (MD)
Interests: Geriatric psychiatry
G-62, Sector 25
Noida - 201301
Private OPD: Mon-Sat
12 noon-2 pm
Second Clinic: G-62, Sector 25
Noida - 201301
The DLF Group was founded in 1946. We developed some of the first residential
Since then we have been responsible for the development of many of
well known urban colonies, including South Extension, Greater Kailash, Kailash
Colony and Hauz Khas.
Following the passage of the Delhi Development Act in 1957, the state assumed
control of real estate development activities in
on private real estate colony development. We therefore commenced acquiring land
at relatively low cost outside the area controlled by the Delhi Development Authority,
particularly in the district of Gurgaon in the adjacent state of Haryana.
This led to our first landmark real estate development project –
DLF Qutab Enclave, which has now evolved into
over 3,000 acres in Gurgaon and is an integrated township, which includes
residential, commercial and retail properties in a modern city infrastructure
with schools, hospitals, hotels and shopping malls. It also boasts of the
prestigious DLF Golf and Country Club with night golfing facilities.
Singh comes from a family of successful landlords and lawyers. After
graduating in Science from
studies in Aeronautical Engineering. Along the line, Mr. Singh got selected
to the prestigious Indian Army, by British Officers services Selection Board,
Subsequently, he joined the
He thereafter was commissioned into The Deccan Horse- a renowned cavalry
regiment of The Indian Army. In the year 1960, he joined American Universal
Electric Company, a joint venture between Universal Electric Company of
Willard India Limited in collaboration with ESB inc of
automatic and industrial batteries in
In the year 1979, he joined DLF Universal Limited. American Universal Company
merged with DLF Universal Limited and Mr. Singh became the Managing
Director of this new company. Today, the Group has established a national
position as a comprehensive and optimum value solution provider
combining high-end technology, design and aesthetics in order to meet its
customer aspirations across the residential, commercial and retail segments
the real estate industry
Posted by : mamtaomsharan ( 29:05:2004 ) | Post a reply to this message
Topic : SEBI CHIEF’S INNOVATION AND REGULATION ON THE UNBRIDLED FOREIGN INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS-REFERENCE-ET
SEBI CHIEF’S INNOVATION AND REGULATION ON THE UNBRIDLED FOREIGN INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS-REFERENCE-ET
REFERENCE-ET-TUESDAY-25TH MAY 2004.PG.4
THE TENDENCY OF THE FOREIGN INVESTORS TO CONTROL THE MARKET HAS SEEN A CRASH IN THE STOCKMARKET WHICH SHOULD NOT AS A RULE FORM THE BACKBONE OF INDIAN ECONOMY..FIIS ARE PITTED AGAINST THE FDIS IN THE INNOVATION SUGGESTED BELOW TO THE BETTERMENT OF THE FDIS(FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTORS) WHO ARE FINDING A COZY CORNER BOTH IN THE STATE OF
ANY COMPANY WHICH TAKES OUT A PUBLIC ISSUE OF EACH SHARE OF RS.100 ,USUALLY EITHER BUYS FROM THE MARKET LATER ON TO EARN OUT OF ITS OWN SHARES OR MAINTAINS ITS OWN MUTUAL FUND/FINANCE /PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT COMPANIES ALONG WITH ALLIED BROKERS AND PROFIT SHARING FIIS TO CONTROL ITS PRICE IN THE MARKET.HOWEVER WITH THE UNBRIDLED FLOW OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT NOWADAYS MANY COMPANIES WILL LOSE DRASTICALLY ON THEIR PORTFOLIOS IF THERE IS NO STRIDENT MARKET REGULATOR FROM SEBI BENEFITING THE FDIS AND DOMESTIC INDUSTRY SHARES.the brokers commission should increase with the increase in the price of the shares and decrease with the decrease in the price of the shares .sbi life is already a subsidiary of fdi.
THE SUGGESTED REMEDIAL MEASURE IS THAT FOR EVERY SHARE OF RS.100 WHICH CROSSES THE RS.140 MARK ON TRADING SHOULD MAKE IT MANDATORY FOR THE BROKER WHO SUPPOSE EARNS A COMMISSION OF RS.4 ON THE TRANSACTION TO PAY RS.1 TO THE PARENT COMPANY AS PROFIT ON ITS SHARE.THAT IS WITH A 40% INCREASE IN THE PRICE OF SUPPOSE JINDAL POWER SHARE ,THE BROKER TRADING ON THE SHARE WILL GIVE A PART OF HIS PROFIT TO JINDAL POWER AND A REGULATOR TO EVERY TRANSACTION WILL CREDIT THE SAME MONEY INTO JINDAL POWERS ACCOUNT.THAT IS ALONG WITH BUYING SHARES OF ONES OWN COMPANY FOR PROFIT ANY INDIAN COMPANY WILL ALSO GAIN WHEN ITS SHARE CROSSES 40% PROFIT MARK.HOWEVER THIS GAIN WILL COME UNDER STRICT TAXATION FOR THE COMPANY AND REBATE FOR THE BROKER DOING THE TRANSACTION.THAT IS FOR A RS.4 PROFIT BY THE BROKER RS.1 WILL GO THE PARENT COMPANY AND THIS WILL EARN HIM TAX REBATE OF .50P.IN ONE RUPPEE HE WILL LOSE .50P AND GAIN TAX REBATE OF .50P.,IN EACH RUPPEE THAT HE CREDITS TO THE PARENT COMPANY.HOWEVER THESE TRANSACTIONS WILL NEED A VERY UPDATED SOFTWARE AND STRIDENT MARKET REGULATION .THESE MEASURES ARE HOWEVER ONLY FOR PROFITS,and totally journalistic and research oriented.
When osama was used by the pentagon to dismantle a 1943 building ,he was actually helping
MAMTA DHODY KALRA,
Topic : SEBI CHIEF’S INNOVATION AND REGULATION ON THE UNBRIDLED FOREIGN INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS-REFERENCE-ET
Total number of Replies for Topic : 0
Create : NewTopic
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872
ACT No. 1 OF 1872*
15th March, 1872.]
Preamble.-WHEREAS it is expedient to consolidate, define and
amend the law of Evidence;
It is hereby enacted as follows:--
RELEVANCY OF FACTS
RELEVANCY OF FACTS
Commencement of Act.
1. Short title.-This Act may be called the Indian Evidence Act,
Extent.-It extends to the whole of
1*[except the State of Jammu India
Kashmir] and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any
Court, including Courts-martial, 2*[other than Courts-martial convened
under the Army Act, (29 & 30 Vict., c. 109)] 3*[the Naval Discipline
Act or 4*** the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934),]
5*[or the Air Force Act] (7 Geo. 5, c. 51.) but not to affidavits 6*
presented to any Court or officer, nor to proceedings before an
Commencement of Act.
Commencement of Act.-And it shall come into force on the first day of
Repeal of enactments.
2. [Repeal of enactments.] Rep. by the Repealing Act, 1938 (1 of
1938), s. 2 and Sch.
3. Interpretation clause.-In this Act the following words and
expressions are used in the following senses, unless a contrary
intention appears from the context:-
"Court" includes all Judges 7* and Magistrates 8*, and all
persons, except arbitrators, legally authorized to take
1 Extended to and brought into force in Dadra and Nagar Haveli (w.e.f.
1.7.65) by Reg. 6 of 1963, s.2 & Sch. I.
2 The Act comes into force in
on 1.10.1963 vide Re. 7 of Pondicherry
1963, s. 3 and Sch. I.
3 Extended to
Goa, Damanand Diuby Reg. 11 of 1963, s. 3 & Sch.
4 Extended to Laccadive, Minicoy and
1-10-1067); vide Reg. 8 of 1965, s. 3 & Sch.
1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "except Part B
2. Ins. by Act 18 of 1919, s. 2 and Sch. I. See s. 127 of the Army
Act (44 and 45 Vict., c. 58).
3. Ins. by Act 35 of 1934, s. 2 and Sch.
4. The words "that Act as modified by" rep. by the A. O. 1950.
5. Ins. by Act 10 of 1927, s. 2 and Sch. I.
6. As to practice relating to affidavits, see the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), s. 30 (c) and Sch. I, Order XIX.
See also the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), ss.
539 and 539A.
7. Cf. the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), s. 2, the
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), s. 19; and, for a definition
of "District Judge", the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897),
s. 3 (17).
8. Cf. the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), s. 3 (32) and
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898).
*Amended in W. Bengal by W. Ben. Act 20 of 1960.
Amended in Tamil Nadu by T.N. Act 67 of 1979.
"Fact" means and includes--
(1) any thing, state of things, or relation of
things, capable of being perceived by the senses;
(2) any mental condition of which any person is
(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in
a certain place, is a fact.
(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.
(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention,
acts in good faith or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a
particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a
particular sensation, is a fact.
(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.
One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is
connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in
the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of
"Facts in issue."
The expression "facts in issue" means and includes--
any fact from which, either by itself or in connection
with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or
extent of any right, liability, or disability, asserted or
denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows.
Explanation.--Whenever, under the provisions of the law for the
time being in force relating to Civil Procedure, 1* any
Court records an issue of fact, the fact to be asserted or
denied in the answer to such issue is a fact in issue.
A is accused of the murder of B.
At his trial the following facts may be in issue:--
that A caused B's death;
that A intended to cause B's death;
that A had received grave and sudden provocation from B;
that A, at the time of doing the act which caused B's death, was,
by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing its
1. See now Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908); as to the
settlement of issues, see Sch. I, Order XIV.
"Document" 1* means any matter expressed or described upon any
substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more
than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may
be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.
A writing 2* is a document:
2* Words printed lithographed or photographed are documents:
A map or plan is a document:
An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document:
A caricature is a document.
"Evidence" means and includes--
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires
to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of
fact under inquiry;
such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) all documents produced for the inspection of the
such documents are called documentary evidence.
A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters
before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or
considers its existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to
act upon the supposition that it exists.
A fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the
matters before it, the Court either believes that it does
not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a
prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular
case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.
A fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor
3*["India" means the territory of India excluding the State of
Jammu and Kashmir.]
1. Cf. the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), s. 29 and the General
Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), s. 3 (18).
2. Cf. definition of "writing" in the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10
of 1897), s. 3 (65).
3. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for the definition of
"State" and "States" which was ins. by the A. O. 1950.
4. "May presume."-Whenever it is provided by this Act that the
Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such fact as proved,
unless and until it is disproved, or may call for proof of it:
"Shall presume."-Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court
shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and
until it is disproved:
"Conclusive proof."-When one fact is declared by this Act to be
conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of the one
fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be
given for the purpose of disproving it.
OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS
CHAPTER II. OF THE RELEVANCY OF FACTS
Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts.
5. Evidence may be given of facts in issue and relevant facts.-
Evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the existence of
non-existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are
hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.
Explanation.--This section shall not enable any person to give
evidence of a fact which he is disentitled to prove by any provision
of the law for the time being in force relating to Civil Procedure. 1*
(a) A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club
with the intention of causing his death.
At A's trial the following facts are in issue:--
A's beating B with the club;
A's causing B's death by such beating;
A's intention to cause B's death.
(b) A suitor does not bring with him, and have in readiness for
production at the first hearing of the case, a bond on which he
relies. This section does not enable him to produce the bond or prove
its contents at a subsequent stage of the proceedings, otherwise than
in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Code of Civil
Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.
6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.-Facts
which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as
to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they
occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
1. See now the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was
said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so
shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a
(b) A is accused of waging war against the 1*[Government of
India] by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is
destroyed, troops are attacked and gaols are broken open. The
occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general
transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.
(c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a
correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject
out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence
in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not
contain the libel itself.
(d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were
delivered to A. The goods were delivered to several intermediate
persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.
Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in issue.
7. Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect of facts in
issue.-Facts which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or
otherwise, of relevant facts, or facts in issue, or which constitute
the state of things under which they happened, which afforded an
opportunity for their occurrence or transaction, are relevant.
(a) The question is, whether A robbed B.
The facts that, shortly before the robbery, B went to a fair with
money in his possession, and that he showed it or mentioned the fact
that he had it, to third persons, are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A murdered B.
Marks on the ground, produced by a struggle at or near the place
where the murder was committed, are relevant facts.
(c) The question is, whether A poisoned B.
The state of B's health before the symptoms ascribed to poison,
and habits of B, known to A, which afforded an opportunity for the
administration of poison, are relevant facts.
Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.
8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.-Any
fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation
for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any
suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in
reference to any fact in issue therein or relevant thereto, and the
conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any
proceeding, is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced
by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or
1. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "Queen".
Explanation 1.--The word "conduct" in this section does not
include statements, unless those statements accompany and explain acts
other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the
relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.
Explanation 2.--When the conduct of any person is relevant, any
statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects
such conduct, is relevant.
(a) A is tried for the murder of B.
The facts that A murdered C, that B knew that A had murdered C,
and that B had tried to extort money from A by threatening to make his
knowledge public, are relevant.
(b) A sues B upon a bond for the payment of money. B denies the
making of the bond.
The fact that, at the time when the bond was alleged to be made,
B required money for a particular purpose, is relevant.
(c) A is tried for the murder of B by poison.
The fact that, before the death of B, A procured poison similar
to that which was administered to B, is relevant.
(d) The question is, whether a certain document is the will of A.
The facts that, not long before the date of the alleged will, A
made inquiry into matters to which the provisions of the alleged will
relate, that he consulted vakils in reference to making the will, and
that he caused drafts of other wills to be prepared of which he did
not approve, are relevant.
(e) A is accused of a crime.
The facts that, either before or at the time of, or after the
alleged crime, A provided evidence which would tend to give to the
facts of the case an appearance favourable to himself, or that he
destroyed or concealed evidence, or prevented the presence or procured
the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned
persons to give false evidence respecting it, are relevant.
(f) The question is, whether A robbed B.
The facts that, after B was robbed, C said in A's presence- "the
police are coming to look for the man who robbed B," and that
immediately afterwards A ran away, are relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A owes B rupees 10,000.
The facts that A asked C to lend him money, and that D said to C
in A's presence and hearing- "I advise you not to trust A, for he owes
B 10,000 rupees," and that A went away without making any answer, are
(h) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The fact that A absconded after receiving a letter warning him
that inquiry was being made for the criminal, and the contents of the
letter, are relevant.
(i) A is accused of a crime.
The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, he
absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of
property acquired by the
crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or might have been
used in committing it, are relevant.
(j) The question is, whether A was ravished.
The facts that, shortly after the alleged rape, she made a
complaint relating to the crime, the circumstances under which, and
the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant.
The fact that, without making a complaint, she said that she had
been ravished is not relevant as conduct under this section, though it
may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32, clause (1),
or as corroborative evidence under section 157.
(k) The question is, whether A was robbed.
The fact that, soon after the alleged robbery, he made a
complaint relating to the offence, the circumstances under which, and
the terms in which, the complaint was made, are relevant.
The fact that he said he had been robbed without making any
complaint, is not relevant, as conduct under this section, though it
may be relevant as a dying declaration under section 32, clause (1),
or as corroborative evidence under section 157.
Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.
9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.-Facts
necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or
which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or
relevant fact, or which establish the identity of any thing or person
whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact
in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of
parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far
as they are necessary for that purpose.
(a) The question is, whether a given document is the will of A.
The state of A's property and of his family at the date of the
alleged will may be relevant facts.
(b) A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A ; B
affirms that the matter alleged to be libellous is true.
The position and relations of the parties at the time when the
libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the facts
The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter
unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact
that there was a dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations
between A and B.
(c) A is accused of a crime.
The fact that, soon after the commission of the crime, A
absconded from his house, is relevant under section 8, as conduct
subsequent to and affected by facts in issue.
The fact that at the time when he left home he had sudden and
urgent business at the place to which he went, is relevant, as tending
to explain the fact that he left home suddenly.
The details of the business on which he left are not relevant,
except in so far as they are necessary to show that the business was
sudden and urgent.
(d) A sues B for inducing C to break a contract of service made
by him with A. C, on leaving A's service, says to A-"I am leaving you
because B has made me a better offer." This statement is a relevant
fact as explanatory of C's conduct, which is relevant as a fact in
(e) A, accused of theft, is seen to give the stolen property to
B, who is seen to give it to A's wife. B says as he delivers it-"A
says your are to hide this." B's statement is relevant as explanatory
of a fact which is part of the transaction.
(f) A is tried for a riot and is proved to have marched at the
head of a mob. The cries of the mob are relevant as explanatory of the
nature of the transaction.
Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common design.
10. Things said or done by conspirator in reference to common
design. Where there is reasonable round to believe that two or more
persons have conspired together to commit an offence or an actionable
wrong, anything said, done or written by any one of such persons in
reference to their common intention, after the time when such
intention was first entertained by any one of them, is a relevant fact
as against each of the persons believed to be so conspiring, as well
for the purpose of proving the existence of the conspiracy as for the
purpose of showing that any such person was a party to it.
Reasonable ground exists for believing that A has joined in a
conspiracy to wage war against the 1*[Government of India].
The facts that B procured arms in Europe for the purpose of the
conspiracy, C collected money in Calcutta for a like object, D
persuaded persons to join the conspiracy in Bombay, E published
writings advocating the object in view at Agra, and F transmitted from
Delhi to G at Kabul the money which C had collected at Calcutta, and
the contents of a letter written by H giving an account of the
conspiracy, are each relevant, both to prove the existence of the
conspiracy, and to prove A's complicity in it, although he may have
been ignorant of all of them, and although the persons by whom they
were done were strangers to him, and although they may have taken
place before he joined the conspiracy or after he left it.
When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.
11. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.-Facts not
otherwise relevant are relevant--
(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or
(2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they
make the existence or non-existence of any fact in
issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
(a) The question is whether A committed a crime at Calcutta on a
The fact that, on that day, A was at Lahore is relevant.
1. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "Queen".
The fact that, near the time when the crime was committed, A was
at a distance from the place where it was committed, which would
render it highly improbable, though not impossible, that he committed
it, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The circumstances are such that the crime must have been
committed either by A, B, C or D. Every fact which shows that the
crime could have been committed by no one else and that it was not
committed by either B, C or D, is relevant.
In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to determine
amount are relevant.
12. In suits for damages, facts tending to enable Court to
determine amount are relevant. In suits in which damages are claimed,
any fact which will enable the Court to determine the amount of
damages which ought to be awarded, is relevant.
Facts relevant when right or custom is in question.
13. Facts relevant when right or custom is in question.-Where the
question is as to the existence of any right or custom, the following
facts are relevant:-
(a) any transaction by which the right or custom in question
was created, claimed, modified, recognized, asserted or
denied, or which was inconsistent with its existence:
(b) particular instances in which the right or custom was
claimed, recognized or exercised, or in which its
exercise was disputed, asserted or departed from.
The question is whether A has a right to a fishery. A deed
conferring the fishery on A's ancestors, a mortgage of the fishery by
A's father, a subsequent grant of the fishery by A's father,
irreconcilable with the mortgage, particular instances in which A's
father exercised the right, or in which the exercise of the right was
stopped by A's neighbours, are relevant facts.
Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body, or bodily
14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body, of
bodily feeling.-Facts showing the existence of any state of mind, such
as intention, knowledge, good faith, negligence, rashness, ill-will or
good-will towards any particular person, or showing the existence of
any state of body or bodily feeling, are relevant, when the existence
of any such state of mind or body or bodily feeling, is in issue or
1*[Explanation 1.--A fact relevant as showing the existence of a
relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists, not
generally, but in reference to the particular matter in question.
Explanation 2.--But where, upon the trial of a person accused of
an offence, the previous commission by the accused of an offence is
1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 1, for the original Explanation.
relevant within the meaning of this section, the previous conviction
of such person shall also be a relevant fact. 1*]
(a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be
stolen. It is proved that he was in possession of a particular stolen
The fact that, at the same time, he was in possession of many
other stolen articles is relevant, as tending to show that he knew
each and all of the articles of which he was in possession to be
2*[(b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person
a counterfeit coin which, at the time when he delivered it, he knew to
The fact that, at the time of its delivery, A was possessed of a
number of other pieces of counterfeit coin is relevant.
The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to
another person as genuine a counterfeit coin knowing it to be
counterfeit is relevant.]
(c) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B's which B knew to be
The facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y and Z, and that
they had made complaints to B, are relevant.
(d) The question is whether A, the acceptor of a bill of
exchange, knew that the name of a payee was fictitious.
The fact that A had accepted other bills drawn in the same manner
before they could have been transmitted to him by the payee if the
payee had been a real person, is relevant, as showing that A knew that
the payee was a fictitious person.
(e) A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation
intended to harm the reputation of B.
The fact of previous publications by A respecting B, showing ill-
will on the part of A towards B is relevant, as proving A's intention
to harm B's reputation by the particular publication in question.
The facts that there was no previous quarrel between A and B, and
that A repeated the matter complained of as he heard it, are relevant,
as showing that A did not intend to harm the reputation of B.
(f) A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C was
solvent, whereby B, being induced to trust C, who was insolvent,
The fact that, at the time when A represented C to be solvent, C
was supposed to be solvent by his neighbours and by persons dealing
with him, is relevant, as showing that A made the representation in
(g) A is sued by B for the price of work done by B, upon a house
of which A is owner, by the order of C, a contractor.
A's defence is that B's contract was with C.
The fact that A paid C for the work in question is relevant, as
proving that A did, in good faith, make over to C the management of
the work in question, so that C was in a position to contract with B
on C's own account, and not as agent for A.
1. See the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), s. 311.
2. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 1, for the original illustration (b).
(h) A is accused of the dishonest misappropriation of property
which he had found, and the question is whether, when he appropriated
it, he believed in good faith that the real owner could not be found.
The fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been
given in the place where A was, is relevant, as showing that A did not
in good faith believe that the real owner of the property could not be
The fact that A knew, or had reason to believe, that the notice
was given fraudulently by C, who had heard of the loss of the property
and wished to set up a false claim to it, is relevant, as showing that
the fact that A knew of the notice did not disprove A's good faith.
(i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill him, In
order to show A's intent the fact of A's having previously shot at B
may be proved.
(j) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B.
Threatening letters previously sent by A to B may be proved, as
showing the intention of the letters.
(k) The question is, whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards
B, his wife.
Expressions of their feeling towards each other shortly before or
after the alleged cruelty are relevant facts.
(l) The question is whether A's death was caused by poison.
Statements made by A during his illness as to his symptoms are
(m) The question is, what was the state of A's health at the time
when an assurance on his life was effected.
Statements made by A as to the state of his health at or near the
time in question are relevant facts.
(n) A sues B for negligence in providing him with a carriage for
hire not reasonably fit for use, whereby A was injured.
The fact that B's attention was drawn on other occasions to the
defect of that particular carriage is relevant.
The fact that B was habitually negligent about the carriages
which he let to hire is irrelevant.
(o) A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting him
The fact that A on other occasions shot at B is relevant as
showing his intention to shoot B.
The fact that A was in the habit of shooting at people with
intent to murder them, is irrelevant.
(p) A is tried for a crime.
The fact that he said something indicating an intention to commit
that particular crime is relevant.
The fact that he said something indicating a general disposition
to commit crimes of that class is irrelevant.
Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional.
15. Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or
intentional.-When there is a question whether an act was accidental or
intentional, 1*[or done with a particular knowledge or intention,] the
fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in
each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.
1. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 2.
(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain
money for which it is insured.
The facts that A lived in several houses successively each of
which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of
which fires A received payment from a different insurance office, are
relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.
(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is
A's duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by
him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he
received less than he really did receive.
The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or
The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are
false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A, are
(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit
The question is, whether the delivery of the rupee was
The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A
delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D and E are relevant, as showing
that the delivery to B was not accidental.
Existence of course of business when relevant.
16. Existence of course of business when relevant.-When there is
a question whether a particular act was done, the existence of any
course of business, according to which it naturally would have been
done, is a relevant fact.
(a) The question is, whether a particular letter was despatched.
The facts that it was the ordinary course of business for all
letters put in a certain place to be carried to the post, and that
particular letter was put in that place are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether a particular letter reached A. The
facts that it was posted in due course, and was not returned through
the Dead Letter Office, are relevant.
17. Admission defined.-An admission is a statement, oral or
documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or
relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the
circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
Admission-by party to proceeding or his agent;
by suitor in representative character;
by party interested in subject matter;
by person from whom interest derived.
18. Admission by party to proceeding or his agent.-Statements
made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party,
whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as
expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions.
by suitor in representative character-Statements made by parties to
suits suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions,
unless they were made while the party making them held that character.
Statements made by--
by party interested in subject matter;
(1) persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the
subject-matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement
in their character of persons so interested, or
by person from whom interest derived.
(2) persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their
interest in the subject-matter of the suit,
are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the
interest of the persons making the statements.
Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party
19. Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as
against party to suit.-Statements made by persons whose position or
liability it is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit,
are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such
persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by
or against them, and if they are made whilst the person making them
occupies such position or is subject to such liability.
A undertakes to collect rents for B.
B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B.
A denies that rent was due from C to B.
A statement by C that he owed B rent is an admission, and is a
relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.
Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit.
20. Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit.-
Statements made by person to whom a party to the suit has expressly
referred for information in reference to a matter in dispute are
The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound.
A says to B--"Go and ask C, C knows all about it." C's statement
is an admission.
Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their
21. Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on
their behalf.-Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the
person who makes them, or his representative in interest; but they
cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by
his representative in interest, except in the following cases:-
(1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person
making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the
person making it were dead, it would be relevant as
between third persons under section 32.
(2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person
making it, when it consists of a statement of the
of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue,
made at or about the time when such state of mind or
body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering
its falsehood improbable.
(3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person
making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an
(a) The question between A and B is, whether a certain deed is or
is not forged. A affirms that it is genuine, B that it is forged.
A may prove a statement by B that the deed is genuine, and B may
prove a statement by A that deed is forged; but A cannot prove a
statement by himself that the deed is genuine, nor can B prove a
statement by himself that the deed is forged.
(b) 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
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 that 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,
(c) A is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta.
He produces a letter written by himself and dated at Lahore on
that day, and bearing the Lahore post-mark of that day.
The statement in the date of the letter is admissible, because,
if A were dead, it would be admissible under section 32, clause (2).
(d) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be
He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their
A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because
they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.
(e) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession
counterfeit coin which he knew to be counterfeit.
He offers to prove that he asked a skilful person to examine the
coin as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that that
person did examine it and told him it was genuine.
A may prove these facts for the reasons stated in the last
When oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevant.
22. When oral admissions as to contents of documents are
relevant.-Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not
relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows
that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such
document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the
genuineness of a document produced is in question.
Admissions in civil cases when relevant.
23. Admissions in civil cases when relevant.-In civil cases no
admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition
that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from
which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that
evidence of it should not be given.
Explanation.--Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt
any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil from giving evidence of any
matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under section
Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in
24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when
irrelevant in criminal proceeding.-A confession made by an accused
person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the
confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement,
threat or promise 1* having reference to the charge against the
accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient,
in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which
would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he
would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in
reference to the proceedings against him.
Confession to police-officer not to be proved.
25. Confession to police-officer not to be proved.-No confession
made to a police-officer2*, shall be proved as against a person
accused of any offence.
Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved
26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be
proved against him.-No confession made by any person whilst he is in
the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate
presence of a Magistrate, 3* shall be proved as against such person.
4*[Explanation.--In this section "Magistrate" does not include
the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the
Presidency of Fort St. George 5*** or elsewhere, unless such headman is
a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 18826* (10 of 1882).]
How much of information received from accused may be proved.
27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.-
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from a person accused of any
1. For prohibition of such inducements, etc., see the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), s. 343.
2. As to statements made to a police-officer investigating a case,
see s. 162, ibid.
3. A Coroner has been declared to be a Magistrate for the purposes
of this section, see the Coroners Act, 1871 (4 of 1871), s. 20.
4. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 3.
5. The words "or in Burma" rep. by the A. O. 1937.
6. See now the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898).
offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such
information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement,
threat or promise, relevant.
28. Confession made after removal of impression caused by
inducement, threat or promise, relevant.-If such a confession as is
referred to in section 24 is made after the impression caused by any
such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the Court,
been fully removed, it is relevant.
Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of
promise of secrecy, etc.
29. Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant
because of promise of secrecy, etc.-If such a confession is otherwise
relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made
under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised
on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was
drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not
have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, or
because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such
confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.
Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and
others jointly under trial for same offence.
30. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it
and others jointly under trial for same offence.-When more persons
than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a
confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some
other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration
such confession as against such other person as well as against the
person who makes such confession.
1*[Explanation.-"Offence" as used in this section, includes the
abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.*2]
(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved
that A said--"B and I murdered C". The Court may consider the effect
of this confession as against B.
(b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to
show that C was murdered by A and B, and that B said--"A and I
This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court
against A, as B is not being jointly tried.
Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop.
31. Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop.-Admissions
are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may operate
as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.
1. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 4.
2. Cf. the Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), Explanation 4 to s.
STATEMENTS BY PERSONS WHO CANNOT BE CALLED AS WITNESSES
Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or
cannot be found, etc., is relevant.
When it relates to cause of death;
or is made in course of business;
or against interest of maker;
or gives opinion as to public right or custom, or matters of general
or relates to existence of relationship;
or is made in will or deed relatin to family affairs;
or in document relating to transaction mentioned in section 13, clause
or is made by several persons and expresses feelings relevant to
matter in question;
32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is
dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.-Statements, written or
verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot
be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose
attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense
which under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court
unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:--
When it relates to cause of death.-
(1) When the statement is made by a person as to the cause
of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in
which the cause of that person's death comes into
Such statements are relevant whether the person who made
them was or was not, at the time when they were made,
under expectation of death, and whatever may be the
nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his
death comes into question.
or is made in course of business;
(2) 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 duty; 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.
or against interest of maker;
(3) When the statement is against the pecuniary or
proprietary interest of the person making it, or when,
if true, it would expose him or would have exposed him
to a criminal prosecution or to a suit for damages.
or gives opinion as to public right or custom, or matters of general
(4) When the statement gives the opinion of any such person,
as to the existence of any public right or custom or
matter of public or general interest, of the existence
of which, if it existed, he would have been likely to
be aware, and when such statement was made before any
controversy as to such right, custom or matter had
or relates to existence of relationship.-
(5) When the statement relates to the existence of any
relationship 1*[by blood, marriage or adoption] between
persons as to whose relationship 1*[by blood, marriage
1. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 2.
the person making the statement had special means of
knowledge, and when the statement was made before the
question in dispute was raised.
or is made in will or deed relating to family affairs;
(6) When the statement relates to the existence of any
relationship 1*[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
or in document relating to transaction mentioned in section 13, clause
(7) When the statement is contained in any deed, will or
other document which relates to any such transaction as
is mentioned in section 13, clause (a).
or is made by several persons and expresses feelings relevant to
matter in question.
(8) When the statement was made by a number of persons, and
expressed feelings or impressions on their part
relevant to the matter in question.
(a) The question is, whether A was murdered by B; or
A dies of injuries received in a transaction in the course of
which she was ravished. The question is whether she was ravished by B;
The question is, whether A was killed by B under such
circumstances that a suit would lie against B by A's widow.
Statements made by A as to the cause of his or her death,
referring respectively to the murder, the rape and the actionable
wrong under consideration, are relevant facts.
(b) The question is as to the date of A's birth.
An entry in the diary of a deceased surgeon regularly kept in the
course of business, stating that, on a given day he attended A's
mother and delivered her of a son, is a relevant fact.
(c) The question is, whether A was in Calcutta on a given day.
A statement in the diary of a deceased solicitor, regularly kept
in the course of business, that on a given day the solicitor attended
A at a place mentioned, in Calcutta, for the purpose of conferring
with him upon specified business, is a relevant fact.
(d) The question is, whether a ship sailed from Bombay harbour on
a given day.
A letter written by a deceased member of a merchant's firm by
which she was chartered to their correspondents in London, to whom the
cargo was consigned, stating that the ship sailed on a given day from
Bombay harbour, is a relevant fact.
1. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 2
(e) The question is, whether rent was paid to A for certain land.
A letter from A's deceased agent to A, saying that he had
received the rent on A's account and held it at A's orders, is a
(f) The question is, whether A and B were legally married.
The statement of a deceased clergyman that he married them under
such circumstances that the celebration would be a crime, is relevant.
(g) The question is, whether A, a person who cannot be found,
wrote a letter on a certain day. The fact that a letter written by him
is dated on that day is relevant.
(h) The question is, what was the cause of the wreck of a ship.
A protest made by the Captain, whose attendance cannot be
procured, is a relevant fact.
(i) The question is, whether a given road is a public way.
A statement by A, a deceased headman of the village, that the
road was public, is a relevant fact.
(j) The question is, what was the price of grain on a certain day
in a particular market.
A statement of the price, made by a deceased banya in the
ordinary course of his business, is a relevant fact.
(k) The question is, whether A, who is dead, was the father of B.
A statement by A that B was his son, is a relevant fact.
(l) The question is, what was the date of the birth of A.
A letter from A's deceased father to a friend, announcing the
birth of A on a given day, is a relevant fact.
(m) The question is, whether, and when, A and B were married.
An entry in a memorandum-book by C, the deceased father of B, of
his daughter's marriage with A on a given date, is a relevant fact.
(n) A sues B for a libel expressed in a painted caricature
exposed in a shop window. The question is as to the similarity of the
caricature and its libellous character. The remarks of a crowd of
spectators on these points may be proved.
Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding,
the truth of facts therein stated.
33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent
proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated.-Evidence given by a
witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by
law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a
subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same
judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the
witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving
evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his
presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense
which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers
that the proceeding was between the same parties or their
representatives in interest;
that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right
and opportunity to cross-examine;
that the questions in issue were substantially the same in
the first as in the second proceeding.
Explanation.--A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a
proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning
of this section.
STATEMENTS MADE UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Entries in books of account when relevant.
34. Entries in books of account when relevant.-1* Entries in books
of account, regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant
whenever they refer to a matter into which the Court has to inquire,
but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge
any person with liability.
A sues B for Rs. 1,000, and shows entries in his account books
showing B to be indebted to him to this amount. The entries are
relevant, but are not sufficient, without other evidence, to prove the
Relevancy of entry in public record made in performance of duty.
35. Relevancy of entry in public record made in performance of
duty.-An entry in any public or other official book, register or
record, stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a public
servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person
in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country
in which such book, register or record is kept, is itself a relevant
Relevancy of statements in maps, charts and plans.
36. Relevancy of statements in maps, charts and plans.-Statements
of facts in issue or relevant facts, made in published maps or charts
generally offered for public sale, or in maps or plans made under the
authority of 2*[the Central Government or any State Government], as to
matters usually represented or stated in such maps, charts or plans,
are themselves relevant facts.
Relevancy of statement as to fact of public nature contained in
certain Acts or notifications.
37. Relevancy of statement as to fact of public nature contained
in certain Acts or notifications.-When the Court has to form an
opinion as to the existence of any fact of a public nature, any
statement of it, made in a recital contained in any Act of Parliament
3*[of the United Kingdom] or in
1. Cf. the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), Sch. I,
Order VII, Rule 17. As to admissibility in evidence of
certified copies of entries in Bankers' books, see the Bankers'
Books Evidence Act, 1891 (18 of 1891), s. 4.
2. Subs. by the A. O. 1948 for "any Govt. in British India".
3. Ins by the A. O. 1950.
any 1*[Central Act, Provincial Act or 2*[a State Act] or in a
Government notification or notification by the Crown Representative
appearing in the Official Gazette or in any printed paper purporting
to be the London Gazette or the Government Gazette of any Dominion,
colony or possession of his Majesty is a relevant fact].
3* * * * *
Relevancy of statements as to any law contained in law-books.
38. Relevancy of statements as to any law contained in law-books.-
When the Court has to form an opinion as to a law of any country, any
statement of such law contained in a book purporting to be printed or
published under the authority of the Government of such country and to
contain any such law, and any report of a ruling of the Courts of such
country contained in a book purporting to be a report of such rulings,
HOW MUCH OF A STATEMENT IS TO BE PROVED
What evidence to be given when statement forms part of a conversation,
document, book or series of letters or papers.
39. What evidence to be given when statement forms part of a
conversation, document, book or series of letters or papers.-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 of a connected series of
letters or papers, evidence shall be given of so much and no more of
the statement, conversation, document, 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.
JUDGMENTS OF COURTS OF JUSTICE WHEN RELEVANT
Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.
40. Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial.-
The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents
any Court from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a
relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take
cognizance of such suit or to hold such trial.
Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc., jurisdiction.
41. Relevancy of certain judgments in probate, etc.,
jurisdiction.-A final judgment, order or decree of a competent Court,
in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency
1. The original words were "Act of the Governor General of India in
Council or of the Governors in Council of Madras or Bombay, or of
the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of Bengal, or in a notification
of the Govt. appearing in the Gazette of India, or in the Gazette
of any L. G., or in any printed paper purporting to be the London
Gazette or the Govt. Gazette of any colony or possession of the
Queen, is a relevant fact". This was amended first by the
Repealing and Amending Act, 1914 (10 of 1914), and then by the A.O.
1937, the A. O. 1948 and the A. O. 1950 to read as above.
2. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "an Act of the
Legislature of a Part A State or a Part C State".
3. The last paragraph omitted by Act 10 of 1914.
which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character,
or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or
to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified
person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any such
legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is
Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof-
that any legal character which it confers accrued at the
time when such judgment, order or decree came into
that any legal character, to which it declares any such
person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the
time when such judgment 1*[order or decree] declares it
to have accrued to that person;
that any legal character which it takes away from any such
person ceased at the time from which such judgment,
1*[order or decree] declared that it had ceased or
and that anything to which it declares any person to be so
entitled was the property of that person at the time
from which such judgment, 1*[order or decree] declares
that it had been or should be his property.
Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those
mentioned in section 41.
42. Relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other
than those mentioned in section 41.-Judgments, orders or decrees other
than those mentioned in section 41 are relevant if they relate to
matters of a public nature relevant to the enquiry; but such
judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which
A sues B for trespass on his land. B alleges the existence of a
public right of way over the land, which A denies.
The existence of a decree in favour of the defendant, in a suit
by A against C for a trespass on the same land, in which C alleged the
existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not
conclusive proof that the right of way exists.
Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40 to 42, when
43. Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40 to
42, when relevant.-Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those
mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the
existence of such
1 Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 3.
judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under
some other provision of this Act.
(a) A and B separately sue C for a libel which reflects upon each
of them. C in each case says that the matter alleged to be libellous
is true, and the circumstances are such that it is probably true in
each case, or in neither.
A obtains a decree against C for damages on the ground that C
failed to make out his justification. The fact is irrelevant as
between B and C.
(b) A prosecutes B for adultery with C, A's wife.
B denies that C is A's wife, but the Court convicts B of
Afterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy in marrying B during A's
lifetime. C says that she never was A's wife.
The judgment against B is irrelevant as against C.
(c) A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted.
A afterwards sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before
his conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is
(d) A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against B.
C, B's son, murders A in consequence.
The existence of the judgment is relevant, as showing motive for
1*[(e) A is charged with theft and with having been previously
convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in
(f) A is tried for the murder of B. The fact that B prosecuted A
for libel and that A was convicted and sentenced is relevant under
section 8 as showing the motive for the fact in issue.]
Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court,
may be proved.
44. Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of
Court, may be proved.-Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show
that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under section
40,41 or 42, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was
delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by
fraud or collusion.
OPINIONS OF THIRD PERSONS WHEN RELEVANT
Opinions of experts.
45. Opinions of experts.-When the Court has to form an opinion
upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity
of handwriting 2*[or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point
of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art,
3*[or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 2*[or finger
impressions] are relevant facts.
Such persons are called experts.
1. Ins. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 5.
2. Ins. by Act 5 of 1899, s. 3. For discussion in Council as to
whether " finger impressions" include "thumb impressions," see
Gazette of India, 1898, Pt. VI, p. 24.
3. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 4.
(a) The questions is, whether the death of A was caused by
The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison
by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain
act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the
nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or
contrary to law.
The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms
exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such
unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the
nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is
either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.
(c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A.
Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been
written by A.
The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents
were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant.
Facts bearing upon opinions of experts.
46. Facts bearing upon opinions of experts.-Facts, not otherwise
relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the
opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.
(a) The question is, whether A was poisoned by a certain poison.
The fact that other persons, who were poisoned by that poison,
exhibited certain symptoms which experts affirm or deny to be the
symptoms of that poison, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether an obstruction to a harbour is
caused by a certain sea-wall.
The fact that other harbours similarly situated in other
respects, but where there were no such sea-walls, began to be
obstructed at about the same time, is relevant.
Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant.
47. Opinion as to hand-writing, when relevant.-When the Court has
to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written
or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting
of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it
was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.
Explanation.--A person is said to be acquainted with the
handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or
when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person
in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and
addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business,
documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually
submitted to him.
The question is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting of
A, a merchant in London.
B is a merchant in Calcutta, who has written letters addressed to
A and received letters purporting to be written by him. C, is B's
clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence. D is
B's broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to
be written by A for the purpose of advising with him thereon.
The opinions of B, C and D on the question whether the letter is
in the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C nor D ever
saw A write.
Opinion as to existence of right or custom, when relevant.
48. Opinion as to existence of right or custom, when relevant.-
When the Court has to form an opinion as to the existence of any
general custom or right, the opinions, as to the existence of such
custom or right, of persons who would be likely to know of its
existence if it existed, are relevant.
Explanation.--The expression "general custom or right" includes
customs or rights common to any considerable class of persons.
The right of the villagers of a particular village to use the
water of a particular well is a general right within the meaning of
Opinion as to usages, tenets, etc., when relevant.
49. Opinion as to usages, tenets, etc., when relevant.-When the
Court has to form an opinion as to--
the usages and tenets of any body of men or family,
the constitution and government of any religious or
charitable foundation, or
the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts
or by particular classes of people,
the opinions of persons having special means of knowledge thereon, are
Opinion on relationship, when relevant.
50. Opinion on relationship, when relevant.-When the Court has to
form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the
opinion, expressed by conduct, as to the existence of such
relationship, of any person who, as a member of the family or
otherwise, has special means of knowledge on the subject, is a
Provided that such opinion shall not be sufficient to prove a
marriage in proceedings under the Indian Divorce Act (4 of 1869), or
in prosecutions under sections 494, 495, 497 or 498 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(a) The question is, whether A and B, were married.
The fact that they were usually received and treated by their
friends as husband and wife, is relevant.
(b) The question is, whether A was the legitimate son of B. The
fact that A was always treated as such by members of the family, is
Grounds of opinion, when relevant.
51. Grounds of opinion, when relevant.-Whenever the opinion of
any living person is relevant, the grounds on which such opinion is
based are also relevant.
An expert may give an account of experiments performed by him for
the purpose of forming his opinion.
CHARACTER WHEN RELEVANT
In civil cases character to prove conduct imputed, irrelevant.
52. In civil cases character to prove conduct imputed,
irrelevant.-In civil cases the fact that the character of any person
concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct
imputed to him is irrelevant, except in so far as such character
appears from facts otherwise relevant.
In criminal cases previous good character relevant.
53. In criminal cases previous good character relevant.-In
criminal proceedings the fact that the person accused is of a good
character is relevant.
Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply.
1*[54. Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply.-In
criminal proceedings the fact that the accused person has a bad
character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a
good character, in which case it becomes relevant.
Explanation 1.--This section does not apply to cases in which the
bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue.
Explanation 2.--A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of
Character as affecting damages.
55. Character as affecting damages.-In civil cases the fact that
the character of any person is such as to affect the amount of damages
which he ought to receive, is relevant.
Explanation.--In sections 52, 53, 54 and 55, the word "character"
includes both reputation and disposition; but, 2*[except as provided
in section 54], evidence may be given only of general reputation and
general disposition, and not of particular acts by which reputation or
disposition were shown.
1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 6, for the original section.
2. Ins. by s. 7, ibid.
FACTS WHICH NEED NOT BE PROVED
FACTS WHICH NEED NOT BE PROVED
Fact judicially noticeable need not be proved.
56. Fact judicially noticeable need not be proved. No fact of
which the Court will take judicial notice need be proved.
Facts of which Court must take judicial notice.
57. Facts of which Court must take judicial notice. The Court
shall take judicial notice of the following facts:--
1*[(1) All laws in force in the territory of India;]
(2) All public Acts passed or hereafter to be passed by
Parliament 2*[of the United Kingdom], and all local and
personal Acts directed by Parliament 2*[of the United
Kingdom] to be judicially noticed;
(3) Articles of War for 3*[the Indian] Army 4*[Navy or Air
5*[(4) The course of proceeding of Parliament of the United
Kingdom, of the Constituent Assembly of India, of
Parliament and of the legislatures established under
any laws for the time being in force in a Province or
in the States;]
(5) The accession and the sign manual of the Sovereign for
the time being of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
(6) All seals of which English Courts take judicial notice;
the seals of all the 6*[Courts in 7*[India]] and of all
Courts out of 7*[India] established by the authority of
8*[the Central Government or the Crown Representative]:
the seals of Courts of Admiralty and Maritime
Jurisdiction and of Notaries Public, and all seals
which any person
1. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for the former para.
2. Ins. ibid.
3. Subs., ibid., for "Her Majesty's".
4. Subs. by Act 10 of 1927, s. 2 and Sch. I, for "or Navy".
5. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for the former para. (4).
6. Subs. by the A. O. 1948 for "Courts of British India".
7. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "the States".
8. Subs. by the A. O. 1937 for "the G. G. or any L. G. in Council".
is authorized to use by 1*[the Constitution or an Act
of Parliament of the United Kingdom or an] Act or
Regulation having the force of law in 2*[India];
(7) The accession to office, names, titles, functions and
signatures of the persons filling for the time being
any public office in any State, if the fact of their
appointment to such office is notified in 3*[any
(8) The existence, title and national flag of every State or
Sovereign recognized by 4*[the Government of India];
(9) The divisions of time, the geographical divisions of the
world, and public festivals, fasts and holidays
notified in the Official Gazette;
(10) The territories under the dominion of 4*[the Government
(11) The commencement, continuance and termination of
hostilities between 4*[the Government of India] and any
other State or body of persons;
(12) The names of the members and officers of the Court and
of their deputies and subordinate offices and
assistants, and also of all officers acting in
execution of its process, and of all advocates,
attorneys, proctors, vakils, pleaders and other persons
authorized by law to appear or act before it;
(13) The rule of the road 5*[on land or at sea].
In all these cases and also on all matters of public history,
literature, science or art, the Court may resort for its aid to
appropriate books or documents of reference.
If the Court is called upon by any person to take judicial notice
of any fact, it may refuse to do so unless and until such person
produces any such book or document as it may consider necessary to
enable it to do so.
Facts admitted need not be proved.
58. Facts admitted need not be proved. No fact need be proved in
any proceeding which the parties thereto their agents agree to admit
at the hearing, or which, before
1. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "any Act of Parliament or other".
2. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "the States".
3. Subs. by the A. O. 1937 for "the Gazette of India or in the
Official Gazette of any L. G."
4. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "the British Crown".
5. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 5.
the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or
which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to
have admitted by their pleadings:
Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts
admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.
OF ORAL EVIDENCE
OF ORAL EVIDENCE
Proof of facts by oral evidence.
59. Proof of facts by oral evidence. All facts, except the
contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence.
Oral evidence must be direct.
60. Oral evidence must be direct. Oral evidence must, in all
cases whatever, be direct; that is to say--
if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the
evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the
evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
if it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other
sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence
of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or
in that manner;
if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that
opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person
who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise
commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are
held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author
is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving
evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay
or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable:
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or
condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may,
if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for
OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Proof of contents of documents.
61. Proof of contents of documents. The contents of documents may
be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.
62. Primary evidence. Primary evidence means the document itself
produced for the inspection of the Court.
Explanation 1.--Where a document is executed in several parts,
each part is primary evidence of the document:
Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart
being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is
primary evidence as against the parties executing it.
Explanation 2.--Where a number of documents are all made by one
uniform process, as in the case of printing, lithography or
photography, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest;
but, where they are all copies of a common original, they are not
primary evidence of the contents of the original.
A person is shown to have been in possession of a number of
placards, all printed at one time from one original. Any one of the
placards is primary evidence of the contents of any other, but no one
of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original.
63. Secondary evidence. Secondary evidence means and includes--
(1) certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter
(2) copies made from the original by mechanical processes
which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy,
and copies compared with such copies;
(3) copies made from or compared with the original;
(4) counterparts of documents as against the parties who did
not execute them;
(5) oral accounts of the contents of a document given by
some person who has himself seen it.
(a) A photograph of an original is secondary evidence of its
contents, though the two have not been compared, if it is proved that
the thing photographed was the original.
(b) A copy compared with a copy of a letter made by a copying
machine is secondary evidence of the contents of the letter, if it is
shown that the copy made by the copying machine was made from the
1. See s. 76, infra.
(c) A copy transcribed from a copy, but afterwards compared with
the original, is secondary evidence; but the copy not so compared is
not secondary evidence of the original, although the copy from which
it was transcribed was compared with the original.
(d) Neither an oral account of a copy compared with the original,
nor an oral account of a photograph or machine-copy of the original,
is secondary evidence of the original.
Proof of documents by primary evidence.
64. Proof of documents by primary evidence. Documents must be
proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned.
Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.
65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may
be given. Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition
or contents of a document in the following cases:--
(a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the
possession or power--
of the person against whom the document is sought
to be proved, or
of any person out of reach of, or not subject to,
the process of the Court, or
of any person legally bound to produce it,
and when, after the notice mentioned in section
66, such person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the
original have been proved to be admitted in writing by
the person against whom it is proved or by his
representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when
the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for
any other reason not arising from his own default or
neglect, produce it in reasonable time;
(d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be
(e) when the original is a public document within the
meaning of section 74;
(f) when the original is a document of which a certified
copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in
force in 1*[India] to be given in evidence; 2*
1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "the States".
2. Cf. the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (18 of 1891), s. 4.
(g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot conveniently be examined in
Court and the fact to be proved is the general result
of the whole collection.
In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents
of the document is admissible.
In case (b), the written admission is admissible.
In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no
other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.
In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of
the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled
in the examination of such documents.
Rules as to notice to produce.
66. Rules as to notice to produce. Secondary evidence of the
contents of the documents referred to in section 65, clause (a), shall
not be given unless the party proposing to give such secondary
evidence has previously given to the party in whose possession or
power the document is, 1*[or to his attorney or pleader,] such notice
to produce it as is prescribed by law; and if no notice is prescribed
by law, then such notice as the Court considers reasonable under the
circumstances of the case:
Provided that such notice shall not be required in order to
render secondary evidence admissible in any of the following cases, or
in any other case in which the Court thinks fit to dispense with it:--
(1) when the document to be proved is itself a notice;
(2) when, from the nature of the case, the adverse party
must know that he will be required to produce it;
(3) when it appears or is proved that the adverse party has
obtained possession of the original by fraud or force;
(4) when the adverse party or his agent has the original in
(5) when the adverse party or his agent has admitted the
loss of the document;
(6) when the person in possession of the document is out of
reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court.
Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or
written document produced.
67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have
signed or written document produced. If a document is alleged to be
signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the
signature or the handwriting
1. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 6.
of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's
handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.
Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.
68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be
attested. If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall
not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been
called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an
attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and
capable of giving evidence:
1*[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting
witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will,
which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the
Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by
the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically
Proof where no attesting witness found.
69. Proof where no attesting witness found. If no such attesting
witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been
executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation
of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the
signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting
of that person.
Admission of execution by party to attested document.
70. Admission of execution by party to attested document. The
admission of a party to an attested document of its execution by
himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him,
though it be a document required by law to be attested.
Proof when attesting witness denies the execution.
71. Proof when attesting witness denies the execution. If the
attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the
document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.
Proof of document not required by law to be attested.
72. Proof of document not required by law to be attested. An
attested document not required by law to be attested may be proved as
if it was unattested.
Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or
73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted
or proved. In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal
is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or
made, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the
satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person
may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that
signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any
The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any
words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare
1. Ins. by Act 31 of 1926, s. 2.
the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to
have been written by such person.
1*[This section applies also, with any necessary modifications,
74. Public documents. The following documents are public
(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 officers, legislative, judicial
and executive, 2*[of any part of India or of the
Common-wealth], or of a foreign country;
(2) public records kept 3*[in any State] of private
75. Private documents. All other documents are private.
Certified copies of public documents.
76. Certified copies of public documents. Every 4* 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
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.
Proof of documents by production of certified copies.
77. Proof of documents by production of certified copies. Such
certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the
public documents or parts of the public documents of which they
purport to be copies.
1. Ins. by Act 5 of 1899, s. 3.
2. The original words "whether of British India, or of any other
part of Her Majesty's Dominions" have successively been amended
by the A. O. 1948 and the A. O. 1950 to read as above.
3. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "in any Province".
4. A village-officer in the Punjab has been declared for the
purposes of this Act to be a public officer having the custody
of a public document--see the Punjab Land-revenue Act, 1887 (17
of 1887), s. 151 (2).
Proof of other official documents.
78. Proof of other official documents. The following public
documents may be proved as follows:--
(1) Acts, orders or notifications of 1*[the Central
Government] in any of its departments, 2*[or of the
Crown Representative] or of any State Government or any
department of any State Government,--
by the records of the departments, certified by
the heads of those departments respectively,
or by any document purporting to be printed by
order of any such Government 2*[or, as the case may be,
of the Crown Representative];
(2) the proceedings of the Legislatures,--
by the journals of those bodies respectively, or
by published Acts or abstracts, or by copies purporting
to be printed 3*[by order of the Government concerned];
(3) proclamations, orders or regulations issued by 4*Her
Majesty or by the Privy Council, or by any department
of 4*Her Majesty's Government,--
by copies or extracts contained in the London
Gazette, or purporting to be printed by the Queen's
(4) the Acts of the Executive or the proceedings of the
Legislature of a foreign country,--
by journals published by their authority, or
commonly received in that country as such, or by a copy
certified under the seal of the country or sovereign,
or by a recognition thereof in some 5*[Central Act]:
(5) the proceedings of a municipal body in 6*[a State],--
by a copy of such proceedings, certified by the
legal keeper thereof, or by a printed book purporting
to be published by the authority of such body;
1. Subs. by the A. O. 1937 for "the Executive Govt, of British
2. Ins. ibid.
3. Subs., ibid., for "by order of Govt."
4. The words "Her Majesty" shall stand unmodified, vide the A. O.
5. Subs. by the A. O. 1937 for "public Act of the Governor General
of India in Council".
6. Subs. by the A. O. 1950. for "a Province".
(6) public documents of any other class in a foreign
by the original, or by a copy certified by the
legal keeper thereof, with a certificate under the seal
of a Notary Public, or of 1*[an Indian Consul] or
diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by
the officer having the legal custody of the original,
and upon proof of the character of the document
according to the law of the foreign country.
PRESUMPTIONS AS TO DOCUMENTS
Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies.
79. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies. The Court
shall presume 2*[to be genuine] every document purporting to be a
certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by law
declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which
purports to be duly certified by any officer 3*[of the Central
Government or of a State Government, or by any officer 4*[in the State
of Jammu and Kashmir] who is duly authorized thereto by the Central
Provided that such document is substantially in the form and
purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.
The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such
document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it,
the official character which he claims in such paper.
Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence.
80. Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence.-
Whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a
record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence,
given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer
authorized by law to take such evidence or to be a statement or
confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with
law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any
such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume--
that the document is genuine; that any statements as to the
circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to
be made by the person signing it, are true, and that
such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.
1. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "a British Consul".
2. Ins. by the A. O. 1948.
3. The original words beginning from "in British India" and ending
with the words "to be genuine" have been successively amended by
the A. O. 1937, A. O. 1948 and A. O. 1950 to read as above.
4. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "in a Part B State".
Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament and
81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of
Parliament and other documents.-The Court shall presume the
genuineness of every document purporting to be the London Gazette or
1*[any Official Gazette, or the Government Gazette] 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 2*[of the
United Kingdom] 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.
Presumption as to document admissible in England without proof of seal
82. Presumption as to document admissible in England without
proof of seal or signature.-When any document is produced before any
Court, purporting to be a document which, by the law in 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 seal 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
and the document shall be admissible for the same purpose for
which it would be admissible in England or Ireland.
Presumption as to maps or plans made by authority of Government.
83. Presumption as to maps or plans made by authority of
Government.-The Court shall presume that maps or plans purporting to
be made by the authority of 3*[the Central Government or any State
Government] were so made, and are accurate; but maps or plans made
for the purposes of any cause must be proved to be accurate.
Presumption as to collections of laws and reports of decisions.
84. Presumption as to collections of laws and reports of
decisions.-The Court shall presume the genuineness of every book
purporting to be printed or published under the authority of the
Government of any country, and to contain any of the laws of that
and of every book purporting to contain reports of decisions of
the Courts of such country.
Presumption as to powers-of-attorney.
85. Presumption as to powers-of-attorney.-The Court shall presume
that every document purporting to be a power-of-attorney, and to have
been executed before, and
1. Subs. by the A. O. 1937 for "the Gazette of India. or the Govt.
Gazette of any L. G., or".
2. Ins. by the A. O. 1950.
3. The original word "Government" has successively been amended by
the A. O. 1937, A. O. 1948, Act 40 of 1949 and the A. O. 1950 to
read as above.
authenticated by, a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate,
1*[Indian] Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative 2*** of the
3*[Central Government], was so executed and authenticated.
Presumption as to certified copies of foreign judicial records.
86. Presumption as to certified copies of foreign judicial
records.-The Court may presume that any document purporting to be a
certified copy of any judicial record of 4*[5*** any country not
forming part of India or] of Her Majesty's Dominions is genuine and
accurate, if the document purports to be certified in any manner
which is certified by any representative of 6*** the 3*[Central
Government] 7*[in or for] 8*[such country] to be the manner commonly
in use in 9*[that country] for the certification of copies of judicial
10*[An officer who, with respect to 11*** any territory or place
not forming part of 12*[India or] Her Majesty's Dominions, is a
Political Agent therefor, as defined in section 3, 13*[clause (43)],
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), shall, for the purposes
of this section, be deemed to be a representative of the 3*[Central
Government] 14*[in and for the country] comprising that territory or
Presumption as to books, maps and charts.
87. Presumption as to books, maps and charts.-The Court may
presume that any book to which it may refer for information on matters
of public or general interest, and that any published map or chart,
the statements of which are relevant facts and which is produced for
its inspection, was written and published by the person and at the
time and place, by whom or at which it purports to have been written
1. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "British".
2. The words "of Her Majesty, or" rep., ibid.
3. Subs. by the A. O. 1937 for "G. of I.".
4. Subs. by the A. O. 1950 for "any country not forming part".
5. The words "a Part B State or of" omitted by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3
6. The Words "Her Majesty or of" rep. by the A. O. 1950.
7. Subs. by Act 3 of 1891, s. 8 for "resident in".
8. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "such Part B State or
9. Subs. by s. 3 and Sch., ibid., for "that State or country".
10. Subs, by Act 5 of 1899, s.4, for the para, added by Act 3 of
1891, s. 3.
11. The words "a Part B State or "ins. by the A. O.. 1950 omitted by
Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch.
12. Ins. by the A. O. 1950.
13. Subs., ibid., for "clause (40)".
14. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3, Sch., for "in and for that Part B
State or country".
Presumption as to telegraphic messages.
88. Presumption as to telegraphic messages.-The Court may presume
that a message, forwarded from a telegraph office to the person to
whom such message purports to be addressed, corresponds with a message
delivered for transmission at the office from which the message
purports to be sent; but the Court shall not make any presumption as
to the person by whom such message was delivered for transmission.
Presumption as to due execution, etc., of documents not produced.
89. Presumption as to due execution, etc., of documents not
produced.-The Court shall presume that every document, called for and
not produced after notice to produce, was attested, stamped and
executed in the manner required by law.
Presumption as to documents thirty years old.
90. Presumption as to documents thirty years old.-Where any
document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced
from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers
proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part
of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any
particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case
of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and
attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and
Explanation.--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.
This explanation applies also to section 81.
(a) A has been in possession of landed property for a long time.
He produces from his custody deeds relating to the land showing his
titles to it. The custody is proper.
(b) A produces deeds relating to landed property of which he is
the mortgagee. The mortgagor is in possession. The custody is proper.
(c) A, a connection of B, produces deeds relating to lands in B's
possession which were deposited with him by B for safe custody. The
custody is proper.
OF THE EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
OF THE EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of
property reduced to form of document.
91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions
of property reduced to form of document.-When the terms of a contract,
or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been
reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any
matter is required by law to be
reduced to the form of a document, no evidence 1* shall be given in
proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of
property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary
evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is
admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.
Exception 1.--When a public officer is required by law to be
appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any particular person
has acted as such officer, the writing by which he is appointed need
not be proved.
Exception 2.--Wills 2*[admitted to probate in 3*[India]] may be
proved by the probate.
Explanation 1.--This section applies equally to cases in which
the contracts, grants or dispositions of property referred to are
contained in one document and to cases in which they are contained in
more documents than one.
Explanation 2.--Where there are more originals than one, one
original only need be proved.
Explanation 3.--The statement, in any document whatever, of a
fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall not
preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same fact.
(a) If a contract be contained in several letters, all the
letters in which it is contained must be proved.
(b) If a contract is contained in a bill of exchange, the bill of
exchange must be proved.
(c) If a bill of exchange is drawn in a set of three, one only
need be proved.
(d) A contracts, in writing, with B, for the delivery of indigo
upon certain terms. The contract mentions the fact that B had paid A
the price of other indigo contracted for verbally on another occasion.
Oral evidence is offered that no payment was made for the other
indigo. The evidence is admissible.
(e) A gives B a receipt for money paid by B.
Oral evidence is offered of the payment.
The evidence is admissible.
1. Where, however, a Criminal Court finds that a confession or other
statement an accused person has not been recorded in the manner
prescribed, evidence may be taken that the recorded statement was
duly made-see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of
1898), s. 533.
2. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 7, for "under the Indian Succession
3. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, s. 3 and Sch., for "the States".
Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.
92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.-When the terms of
any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any
matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have
been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral
agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to
any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the
purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its
Proviso (1).--Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any
document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order
relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due
execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, 1*[want or
failure] of consideration, or mistake in fact or law.
Proviso (2).--The existence of any separate oral agreement as to
any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not
inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or
not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of
formality of the document.
Proviso (3).--The existence of any separate oral agreement,
constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation
under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be
Proviso (4).--The existence of any distinct subsequent oral
agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition
of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract,
grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing,
or has been registered according to the law in force for the time
being as to the registration of documents.
Proviso (5).--Any usage or custom by which incidents not
expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts
of that description, may be proved:
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be
repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract.
Proviso (6).--Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner
the language of a document is related to existing facts.
(a) A policy of insurance is effected on goods "in ships from
Calcutta to London". The goods are shipped in a particular ship which
is lost. The fact that particular ship was orally excepted from the
policy cannot be proved.
1. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 8, for "want of failure".
(b) A agrees absolutely in writing to pay B Rs. 1,000 on the
first March 1873. The fact that, at the same time an oral agreement
was made that the money should not be paid till the thirty-first March
cannot be proved.
(c) An estate called "the Rampore tea estate" is sold by a deed
which contains a map of the property sold. The fact that land not
included in the map had always been regarded as part of the estate and
was meant to pass by the deed cannot be proved.
(d) A enters into a written contract with B to work certain
mines, the property of B, upon certain terms. A was induced to do so
by a misrepresentation of B's as to their value. This fact may be
(e) A institutes a suit against B for the specific performance of
a contract, and also prays that the contract may be reformed as to one
of its provisions, as that provision was inserted in it by mistake. A
may prove that such a mistake was made as would by law entitle him to
have the contract reformed.
(f) A orders goods of B by a letter in which nothing is said as
to the time of payment, and accepts the goods on delivery. B sues A
for the price. A may show that the goods were supplied on credit for a
term still unexpired.
(g) A sells B a horse and verbally warrants him sound. A gives B
a paper in these words: "Bought of A a horse of Rs. 500". B may prove
the verbal warranty.
(h) A hires lodgings of B, and gives B a card on which is
written--"Rooms, Rs. 200 a month." A may prove a verbal agreement that
these terms were to include partial board.
A hires lodgings of B for a year, and a regularly stamped
agreement, drawn up by an attorney, is made between them. It is silent
on the subject of board. A may not prove that board was included in
the term verbally.
(i) A applies to B for a debt due to A by sending a receipt for
the money. B keeps the receipt and does not send the money. In a suit
for the amount, A may prove this.
(j) A and B make a contract in writing to take effect upon the
happening of a certain contingency. The writing is left with B, who
sues A upon it. A may show the circumstances under which it was
Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document.
93. Exclusion of evidence to explain or amend ambiguous document.-
When the language used in a document is, on its face, ambiguous or
defective, evidence may not be given of facts which would show its
meaning or supply its defects.
(a) A agrees, in writing, to sell a horse to B for "Rs. 1,000 or
Evidence cannot be given to show which price was to be given.
(b) A deed contains blanks. Evidence cannot be given of facts
which would show how they were meant to be filled.
Exclusion of evidence against application of document to existing
94. Exclusion of evidence against application of document to
existing facts.-When language used in a document is plain in itself,
and when it applies accurately to existing facts, evidence may not be
given to show that it was not meant to apply to such facts.
A sells to B, by deed, "my estate at Rampur containing 100
bighas". A has an estate at Rampur containing 100 bighas. Evidence may
not be given of the fact that the estate meant to be sold was one
situated at a different place and of a different size.
Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing facts.
95. Evidence as to document unmeaning in reference to existing
facts.-When language used in a document is plain in itself, but is
unmeaning in reference to existing facts, evidence may be given to
show that it was used in a peculiar sense.
A sells to B, by deed, "my house in Calcutta".
A had no house in Calcutta, but it appears that he had a house at
Howrah, of which B had been in possession since the execution of the
These facts may be proved to show that the deed related to the
house at Howrah.
Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one only of
96. Evidence as to application of language which can apply to one
only of several persons.-When the facts are such that the language
used might have been meant to apply to any one, and could not have
been meant to apply to more than one, of several persons or things,
evidence may be given of facts which show which of those persons or
things it was intended to apply to.
(a) A agrees to sell to B, for Rs. 1,000, "my white horse". A has
two white horses. Evidence may be give of facts which show which of
them was meant.
(b) A agrees to accompany B to Haidarabad. Evidence may be given
of facts showing whether Haidarabad in the Dekkhan or Haiderabad in
Sind was meant.
Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of facts, to
neither of which the whole correctly applies.
97. Evidence as to application of language to one of two sets of
facts, to neither of which the whole correctly applies.-When the
language used applies partly to one set of existing facts, and partly
to another set of existing facts, but the whole of it does not apply
correctly to either, evidence may be given to show to which of the two
it was meant to apply.
A agrees to sell to B "my land at X in the occupation of Y". A
has land at X, but not in the occupation of Y, and he has land in the
occupation of Y but it is not at X. Evidence may be given of facts
showing which he meant to sell.
Evidence as to meaning of illegible characters, etc.
98. Evidence as to meaning of illegible characters, etc.-Evidence
may be given to show the meaning of illegible or not commonly
intelligible characters, of foreign, obsolete, technical,
local and provincial expressions, of abbreviations and of words used
in a peculiar sense.
A, sculptor, agrees to sell to B, "all my mods". A has both
models and modelling tools. Evidence may be given to show which he
meant to sell.
Who may give evidence of agreement varying terms of document.
99. Who may give evidence of agreement varying terms of document.-
Persons who are not parties to a document, or their representatives in
interest, may give evidence of any facts tending to show a
contemporaneous agreement varying the terms of the document.
A and B make a contract in writing that B shall sell A certain
cotton, to be paid for on delivery. At the same time they make an oral
agreement that three months credit shall be given to A. This could not
be shown as between A and B, but it might be shown by C, if it
affected his interests.
Saving of provisions of Indian Succession Act relating to wills.
100. Saving of provisions of Indian Succession Act relating to
wills.-Nothing in this Chapter contained shall be taken to affect any
of the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1865 (10 of 1865)1*
as to the construction of wills.
PRODUCTION AND EFFECT OF EVIDENCE
PRODUCTION AND EFFECT OF EVIDENCE
OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF
OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Burden of proof.
101. Burden of proof.-Whoever desires any Court to give judgment
as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts
which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is
said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
(a) A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished
for a crime which A says B has committed.
A must prove that B has committed the crime.
1. See now the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), Pt. VI, Ch.
(b) A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to
certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he
asserts, and which B denies, to be true.
A must prove the existence of those facts.
On whom burden of proof lies.
102. On whom burden of proof lies.-The burden of proof in a suit
or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all
were given on either side.
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as
A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B's father.
If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to
retain his possession.
Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
(b) A sues B for money due on a bond.
The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was
obtained by fraud, which A denies.
If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as the
bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved.
Therefore the burden of proof is on B.
Burden of proof as to particular fact.
103. Burden of proof as to particular fact.-The burden of proof
as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to
believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the
proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
1*[(a)] A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe
that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission.
B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he
was elsewhere. He must prove it.
Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.
104. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence
admissible.-The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in
order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on
the person who wishes to give such evidence.
(a) A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove B's
(b) A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a
A must prove that the document has been lost.
1. Sic. In the Act as published in Gazette of India, 1872, pt. IV,
p. 1, there is no illustration (b).
Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.
105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within
exceptions.-When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of
proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of
the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860) or
within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of
the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and
the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances.
(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness
of mind, he did not know the nature of the act.
The burden of proof is on A.
(b) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by grave and sudden
provocation, he was deprived of the power of self-control.
The burden of proof is on A.
(c) Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) provides
that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335,
voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be subject to certain
A is charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section
The burden of proving the circumstances bringing the case under
section 335 lies on A.
Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-When any
fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him.
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that
which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden
of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket.
The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.
Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within
107. Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive
within thirty years.-When the question is whether a man is alive or
dead, and it is shown that he was alive within thirty years, the
burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it.
Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for
108. Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been
heard of for seven years.-1*[Provided that when] the question is
whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been
heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of
him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is
2*[shifted to] the person who affirms it.
1. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 9, for "When".
2. Subs. by s. 9, ibid., for "on".
Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord
and tenant, principal and agent.
109. Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners,
landlord and tenant, principal and agent.-When the question is whether
persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and
it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of
proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand, to each other
in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it.
Burden of proof as to ownership.
110. Burden of proof as to ownership.-When the question is
whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in
possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the
person who affirms that he is not the owner.
Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in relation of
111. Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in
relation of active confidence.-Where there is a question as to the
good faith of a transaction between parties, one of whom stands to the
other in a position of active confidence, the burden of proving the
good faith of the transaction is on the party who is in a position of
(a) The good faith of a sale by a client to an attorney is in
question in a suit brought by the client. The burden of proving the
good faith of the transaction is on the attorney.
(b) The good faith of a sale by a son just come of age to a
father is in question in a suit brought by the son. The burden of
proving the good faith of the transaction is on the father.
Presumption as to certain offences.
1*[111A. Presumption as to certain offences.-(1) Where a person
is accused of having committed any offence specified in sub-section
(a) any area declared to be a disturbed area under any
enactment, for the time being in force, making provision for the
suppression of disorder and restoration and maintenance of public
(b) any area in which there has been, over a period of more
than one month, extensive disturbance of the public peace,
and it is shown that such person had been at a place in such area at a
time when firearms or explosives were used at or from that place to
attack or resist the members of any armed forces or the forces charged
with the maintenance of public order acting in the discharge of their
duties, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that such
person had committed such offence.
(2) The offences referred to in sub-section (1) are the
(a) an offence under section 121, section 121A, section 122
or section 123 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(b) criminal conspiracy or attempt to commit, or abetment of, an
offence under section 122 or section 123 of the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860).
Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy.
112. Birth during marriage, conclusive proof of legitimacy.-The
fact that any person was born during the continuance of a valid
marriage between his mother and any man, or within two hundred and
eighty days after its dissolution, the mother remaining unmarried,
shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate son of that man,
unless it can be shown that the parties to the marriage had no access
to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.
Proof of cession of territory.
113. Proof of cession of territory.-A notification in the
Official Gazette that any portion of British territory has 2*[before
the commencement of Part III of the Government of India Act, 1935 (26
Geo. 5, e. 2)] been ceded to any Native State, Prince or Ruler, shall
be conclusive proof that a valid cession of such territory took place
at the date mentioned in such notification.
Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman.
3*[113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married
woman.-When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a
woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband
and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of
seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such
relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may
presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case,
that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative
of her husband.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" shall
have the same meaning as in section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860).]
Presumption as to dowry death.
4*[113B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the question is
whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is
shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such
person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand
for dowry, the court shall presume that such person had caused the
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "dowry death"
shall have the same meaning as in section 304B of the Indian Penal
Court may presume existence of certain facts.
114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. The Court may
presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have
happened, regard being had to the common
1. Ins. by Act 61 of 1984, s. 20 (w.e.f. 14.7.1984).
2. Ins. by the A. O. 1937, Part III of the Govt. of India Act, 1935,
came into force on the 1st April, 1937.
3. Ins. by Act 46 of 1983, s. 7
4. Ins. by Act 43 of 1986, s. 12 (w.e.f. 19.11.1986).
course of natural events, human conduct and public and private
business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
The Court may presume--
(a) that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon
after the theft is either the thief or has received the
goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account
for his possession;
(b) that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is
corroborated in material particulars;
(c) that a bill of exchange, accepted or endorsed, was
accepted or endorsed for good consideration;
(d) that a thing or state of things which has been shown to
be in existence within a period shorter than that
within which such things or states of things usually
cease to exist, is still in existence;
(e) that judicial and official acts have been regularly
(f) that the common course of business has been followed in
(g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would,
if produced, be unfavourable to the person who
(h) that if a man refuses to answer a question which he is
not compelled to answer by law, the answer, if given,
would be unfavourable to him;
(i) that when a document creating an obligation is in the
hands of the obligor, the obligation has been
But the Court shall also have regard to such facts as the
following, in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to
the particular case before it:--
as to illustration (a)--a shop-keeper has in his till a marked
rupee soon after it was stolen, and cannot account for its possession
specifically, but is continually receiving rupees in the course of his
as to illustration (b)--A, a person of the highest character is
tried for causing a man's death by an act of negligence in arranging
certain machinery. B, a person of equally good character, who also
took part in the arrangement, describes precisely what was done, and
admits and explains the common carelessness of A and himself:
as to illustration (b)--a crime is committed by several persons.
A, B and C, three of the criminals, are captured on the spot and kept
apart from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating
D, and the accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to
render previous concert highly improbable:
as to illustration (c)--A, the drawer of a bill of exchange, was
a man of business. B, the acceptor, was a young and ignorant person,
completely under A's influence:
as to illustration (d)--it is proved that a river ran in a
certain course five years ago, but it is known that there have been
floods since that time which might change its course:
as to illustration (e)--a judicial act, the regularity of which
is in question, was performed under exceptional circumstances:
as to illustration (f)--the question is, whether a letter was
received. It is shown to have been posted, but the usual course of the
post was interrupted by disturbances:
as to illustration (g)--a man refuses to produce a document which
would bear on a contract of small importance on which he is sued, but
which might also injure the feelings and reputation of his family:
as to illustration (h)--a man refuses to answer a question which
he is not compelled by law to answer, but the answer to it might cause
loss to him in matters unconnected with the matter in relation to
which it is asked:
as to illustration (i)--a bond is in possession of the obligor,
but the circumstances of the case are such that he may have stolen it.
Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape.
1*[114A. Presumption as to absence of consent in certain
prosecutions for rape.-In a prosecution for rape under clause (a) or
clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (g) of
sub-section (2) of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, where sexual
intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it
was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and
she states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent,
the Court shall presume that she did not consent.]
115. Estoppel.-When one person has, by his declaration, act or
omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe
a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his
representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between
himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of
A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land
belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it.
The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set
aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no
title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.
Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession.
116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession.-
No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such
tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to
deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the
tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came
upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession
thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to
such possession at the time when such licence was given.
Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee.
117. Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or
licensee.-No acceptor of a bill of exchange shall be permitted to deny
that the drawer had authority to draw such bill or to endorse it; nor
shall any bailee or licensee be permitted to deny that his bailor or
licensor had, at the time when the bailment or licence commenced,
authority to make such bailment or grant such licence.
1. Ins. by Act 43 of 1983, s. 6.
Explanation (1).--The acceptor of a bill of exchange may deny
that the bill was really drawn by the person by whom it purports to
have been drawn.
Explanation (2).--If a bailee delivers the goods bailed to a
person other than the bailor, he may prove that such person had a
right to them as against the bailor.
Who may testify.
118. Who may testify.-All persons shall be competent to testify
unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding
the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those
questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body
or mind, or any other cause of the same kind.
Explanation.--A lunatic is not incompetent to testify, unless he
is prevented by his lunacy from understanding the questions put to him
and giving rational answers to them.
119. Dumb witnesses.-A witness who is unable to speak may give
his evidence in any other manner in which he can make it intelligible,
as by writing or by signs; but such writing must be written and the
signs made in open Court. Evidence so given shall be deemed to be oral
Parties to civil suit, and their wives or husbands. Husband or wife of
person under criminal trial.
120. Parties to civil suit, and their wives or husbands. Husband
or wife of person under criminal trial.-In all civil proceedings the
parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit,
shall be competent witnesses. In criminal proceedings against any
person, the husband or wife of such person, respectively, shall be a
Judges and Magistrates.
121. Judges and Magistrates.-No Judge or Magistrate shall, except
upon the special order of some Court to which he is subordinate, be
compelled to answer any questions as to his own conduct in Court as
such Judge or Magistrate, or as to anything which came to his
knowledge in Court as such Judge or Magistrate; but he may be examined
as to other matters which occurred in his presence whilst he was so
(a) A, on his trial before the Court of Session, says that a
deposition was improperly taken by B, the Magistrate. B cannot be
compelled to answer questions as to this, except upon the special
order of a superior Court.
(b) A is accused before the Court of Session of having given
false evidence before B, a Magistrate. B cannot be asked what A said,
except upon the special order of the superior Court.
(c) A is accused before the Court of Session of attempting to
murder a police-officer whilst on his trial before B, a Sessions
Judge. B may be examined as to what occurred.
Communications during marriage.
122. Communications during marriage.-No person who is or has been
married shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him
during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor
shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the
person who made it, or his representative in interest, consents,
except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one
married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the
Evidence as to affairs of State.
123. Evidence as to affairs of State.-No one shall be permitted
to give any evidence derived from unpublished official records
relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the
officer at the head of the department concerned, who shall give or
withhold such permission as he thinks fit.
124. Official communications.-No public officer shall be
compelled to disclose communications made to him in official
confidence, when he considers that the public interests would suffer
by the disclosure.
Information as to commission of offences.
1*[125. Information as to commission of offences.-No Magistrate
or police-officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any
information as to the commission of any offence, and no revenue-
officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to
the commission of any offence against the public revenue.
Explanation.--"Revenue-officer" in this section means any officer
employed in or about the business of any branch of the public
126. Professional communications.-No barrister, attorney, pleader
or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's
express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the
course and for the purpose of his employment as such barrister,
pleader, attorney or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state
the contents or condition of any document with which he has become
acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional
employment, or to disclose any advice
1. Subs. by Act 3 of 1887, s. 1, for the original s. 125.
given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such
Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from
(1) any such communication made in furtherance of any
(2) any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney
or vakil, in the course of his employment as such,
showing that any crime or fraud has been committed
since the commencement of his employment.
It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister,
2*[pleader], attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by
or on behalf of his client.
Explanation.--The obligation stated in this section continues
after the employment has ceased.
(a) A, a client, says to B, an attorney--"I have committed
forgery and I wish you to defend me."
As the defence of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal
purpose, this communication is protected from disclosure.
(b) A, a client, says to B, an attorney--"I wish to obtain
possession of property by the use of a forged deed on which I request
you to sue."
This communication, being made in furtherance of a criminal
purpose, is not protected from disclosure.
(c) A, being charged with embezzlement, retains B, an attorney,
to defend him. In the course of the proceedings, B observes that an
entry has been made in A's account book, charging A with the sum said
to have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the
commencement of his employment.
This being a fact observed by B in the course of his employment,
showing that a fraud has been committed since the commencement of the
proceedings, it is not protected from disclosure.
Section 126 to apply to interpreters, etc.
127. Section 126 to apply to interpreters, etc.-The provisions of
section 126 shall apply to interpreters, and the clerks or servants of
barristers, pleaders, attorneys and vakils.
Privilege not waived by volunteering evidence.
128. Privilege not waived by volunteering evidence.-If any party
to a suit gives evidence therein at his own instance or otherwise, he
shall not be deemed to have consented thereby to such disclosure as is
mentioned in section 126; and if any
1. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 10, for "criminal".
2. Ins. by s. 10, ibid.
party to a suit or proceeding calls any such barrister, 1*[pleader],
attorney or vakil as a witness, he shall be deemed to have consented
to such disclosure only if he questions such barrister, attorney or
vakil on matters which, but for such question, he would not be at
liberty to disclose.
Confidential communications with legal advisers.
129. Confidential communications with legal advisers.-No one
shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential
communication which has taken place between him and his legal
professional adviser, unless he offers himself as a witness, in which
case he may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may
appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to explain any
evidence which he has given, but no others.
Production of title-deeds of witness not a party.
130. Production of title-deeds of witness not a party.-No witness
who is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title-
deeds to any property, or any document in virtue of which he holds any
property as pledgee or mortgagee or any document the production of
which might tend to criminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to
produce them with the person seeking the production of such deeds or
some person through whom he claims.
Production of documents which another person, having possession, could
refuse to produce.
131. Production of documents which another person, having
possession, could refuse to produce.-No one shall be compelled to
produce documents in his possession, which any other person would be
entitled to refuse to produce if they were in his possession, unless
such last-mentioned person consents to their production.
Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will
132. Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer
will criminate.-A witness shall not be excused from answering any
question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit
or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the
answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or
indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend
directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or
forfeiture of any kind:
Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled
to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved
against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for
giving false evidence by such answer.
1. Ins. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 10.
133. Accomplice.-An accomplice shall be a competent witness
against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely
because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an
Number of witnesses.
134. Number of witnesses.-No particular number of witnesses shall
in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
OF THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
OF THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
Order of production and examination of witnesses.
135. Order of production and examination of witnesses.-The order
in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the
law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal
procedure respectively, and, in the absence of any such law, by the
discretion of the Court.
Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.
136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.-When either
party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the Judge may ask the
party proposing to give the evidence in what manner the alleged fact,
if proved, would be relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence
if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not
If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is
admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such last-mentioned
fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first-
mentioned, unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact, and
the Court is satisfied with such undertaking.
If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged
fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either
permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact
is proved, or require evidence to be given of the second fact before
evidence is given of the first fact.
(a) It is proposed to prove a statement about a relevant fact by
a person alleged to be dead, which statement is relevant under section
The fact that the person is dead must be proved by the person
proposing to prove the statement, before evidence is given of the
(b) It is proposed to prove, by a copy, the contents of a
document said to be lost.
The fact that the original is lost must be proved by the person
proposing to produce the copy, before the copy is produced.
(c) A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have
It is proposed to prove that he denied the possession of the
The relevancy of the denial depends on the identity of the
property. The Court may, in its discretion, either require the
property to be identified before the denial of the possession is
proved, or permit the denial of the possession to be proved before the
property is identified.
(d) It is proposed to prove a fact (A) which is said to have been
the cause or effect of fact in issue. There are several intermediate
facts (B, C and D) which must be shown to exist before the fact (a)
can be regarded as the cause or effect of the fact in issue. The Court
may either permit A to be proved before B, C or D is proved, or may
require proof of B, C and D before permitting proof of A.
137. Examination-in-chief.-The examination of witness by the
party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.
Cross-examination.-The examination of a witness by the adverse party
shall be called his cross-examination.
Re-examination.-The examination of a witness, subsequent to the
cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his
Order of examinations.
138. Order of examinations.-Witnesses shall be first examined-in-
chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then ( if
the party calling him so desires) re-examined.
The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant
facts but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to
which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.
Direction of re-examination.
The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of
matters referred to in cross-examination; and, if new matter is, by
permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse
party may further cross-examine upon that matter.
Cross-examination of person called to produce a document.
139. Cross-examination of person called to produce a document.-A
person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the
mere fact that he produces it and cannot be cross-examined unless and
until he is called as a witness.
Witnesses to character.
140. Witnesses to character.-Witnesses to character may be cross-
examined and re-examined.
141. Leading questions.-Any question suggesting the answer which
the person putting it wishes or expects to receive is called a leading
When they must not be asked.
142. When they must not be asked.-Leading questions must not, if
objected to by the adverse party be asked in an examination-in-chief,
or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court.
The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are
introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been
already sufficiently proved.
When they may be asked.
143. When they may be asked.-Leading questions may be asked in
Evidence as to matters in writing.
144. Evidence as to matters in writing.-Any witness may be asked,
whilst under examination whether any contract, grant or other
disposition of property, as to which he is giving evidence, was not
contained in a document, and if he says that it was, or if he is about
to make any statement as to the contents of any document, which, in
the opinion of the Court, ought to be produced, the adverse party may
object to such evidence being given until such document is produced,
or until facts have been proved which entitle the party who called the
witness to give secondary evidence of it.
Explanation.--A witness may give oral evidence of statements made
by other persons about the contents of documents if such statements
are in themselves relevant facts.
The question is, whether A assaulted B.
C deposes that he heard A say to D--"B wrote a letter accusing me
of theft, and I will be revenged on him." This statement is relevant,
as showing A's motive for the assault, and evidence may be given of
it, though no other evidence is given about the letter.
Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.
1*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.
Questions lawful in cross-examination.
146. Questions lawful in cross-examination.-When a witness is
cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore
referred to, be asked any questions which tend-
(1) to test his veracity,
(2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life,
1. As to the application of s. 145 to police-diaries, see the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1998), s. 172.
(3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although
the answer to such questions might tend directly or
indirectly to criminate him or might expose or tend
directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or
When witness to be compelled to answer.
147. When witness to be compelled to answer.-If any such question
relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the provisions
of section 132 shall apply thereto.
Court to decide when question shall be asked and when witness
compelled to answer.
148. Court to decide when question shall be asked and when
witness compelled to answer.-If any such question relates to a matter
not relevant to the suit or proceeding, except in so far as it affects
the credit of the witness by injuring his character, the Court shall
decide whether or not the witness shall be compelled to answer it, and
may, if it thinks fit, warn the witness that he is not obliged to
answer it. In exercising its discretion, the Court shall have regard
to the following considerations:--
(1) such questions are proper if they are of such a nature
that the truth of the imputation conveyed by them would
seriously affect the opinion of the Court as to the
credibility of the witness on the matter to which he
(2) such questions are improper if the imputation which they
convey relates to matters so remote in time, or of such
a character, that the truth of the imputation would not
affect, or would affect in a slight degree, the opinion
of the Court as to the credibility of the witness on
the matter to which he testifies:
(3) such questions are improper if there is a great
disproportion between the importance of the imputation
made against the witness's character and the importance
of his evidence:
(4) the Court may, if it sees fit, draw, from the witness's
refusal to answer, the inference that the answer if
given would be unfavourable.
Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds.
149. Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds.-No such
question as is referred to in section 148 ought to be asked, unless
the person asking it has reasonable grounds for thinking that the
imputation which it conveys is well-founded.
(a) A barrister is instructed by an attorney or vakil that an
important witness is a dakait. This is a reasonable ground for asking
the witness whether he is a dakait.
(b) A pleader is informed by a person in Court that an important
witness is a dakait. The informant, on being questioned by the
pleader, gives satisfactory reasons for his statement. This is a
reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a dakait.
(c) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known is asked at
random whether he is a dakait. There are here no reasonable ground for
(d) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, being
questioned as to his mode of life and means of living, gives
unsatisfactory answers. This may be a reasonable ground for asking him
if he is a dakait.
Procedure of Court in case of question being asked without reasonable
150. Procedure of Court in case of question being asked without
reasonable grounds.-If the Court is of opinion that any such question
was asked without reasonable grounds, it may, if it was asked by any
barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney, report the circumstances of the
case to the High Court or other authority to which such barrister,
pleader, vakil or attorney is subject in the exercise of his
Indecent and scandalous questions.
151. Indecent and scandalous questions.-The Court may forbid any
questions or inquiries which it regards as indecent or scandalous,
although such questions or inquiries may have some bearing on the
questions before the Court unless they relate to facts in issue, or to
matters necessary to be known in order to determine whether or not the
facts in issue existed.
Questions intended to insult or annoy.
152. Questions intended to insult or annoy.-The Court shall
forbid any question which appears to it to be intended to insult or
annoy, or which, though proper in itself, appears to the Court
needlessly offensive in form.
Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing
153. Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions
testing veracity.-When a witness has been asked and has answered any
question which is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends
to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be
given to contradict him; but, if he answers falsely, he may afterwards
be charged with giving false evidence.
Exception 1.--If a witness is asked whether he has been
previously convicted of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given
of his previous conviction.
Exception 2.--If a witness is asked any question tending to
impeach his impartiality- and answers it by denying the facts
suggested, he may be contradicted.
(a) A claim against an underwriter is resisted on the ground of
The claimant is asked whether, in a former transaction, he had
not made a fraudulent claim. He denies it.
Evidence is offered to show that he did make such a claim.
The evidence is inadmissible
(b) A witness is asked whether he was not dismissed from a
situation for dishonesty.
He denies it.
Evidence is offered to show that he was dismissed for dishonesty.
The evidence is not admissible.
(c) A affirms that on a certain day he saw B at Lahore.
A is asked whether he himself was not on that day at Calcutta. He
Evidence is offered to show that A was on that day at Calcutta.
The evidence is admissible, not as contradicting A on a fact
which affects his credit, but as contradicting the alleged fact that B
was seen on the day in question in Lahore.
In each of these cases the witness might, if his denial was
false, be charged with giving false evidence.
(d) A is asked whether his family has not had a bloodfeud with
the family of B against whom he gives evidence.
He denies it. He may be contradicted on the ground that the
question tends to impeach his impartiality.
Question by party to his own witness.
154. Question by party to his own witness.-The Court may, in its
discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions
to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.
Impeaching credit of witness.
155. Impeaching credit of witness.-The credit of a witness may be
impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the
consent of the Court, by the party who calls him:-
(1) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from
their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be
unworthy of credit;
(2) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has
1*[accepted] the offer of bride, or has received any
other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;
(3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part
of his evidence which is liable to be contradicted;
(4) when a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to
ravish, it may be shown that the prosecutrix was of
generally immoral character.
Explanation.--A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy
of credit may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his
belief, but he may be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the
answers which he gives cannot be contradicted, though, if they are
false, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.
1. Subs. by Act 18 of 1872, s. 11, for "had".
(a) A sues B for the price of goods sold and delivered to
B. C says that he delivered the goods to B.
Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, he said
that he had not delivered goods to B.
The evidence is admissible.
(b) A is indicted for the murder of B.
C says that B, when dying, declared that A had given B the wound
of which he died.
Evidence is offered to show that, on a previous occasion, C said
that the wound was not given by A or in his presence.
The evidence is admissible.
Questions tending to corroborate evidence of relevant fact,
156. Questions tending to corroborate evidence of relevant fact,
admissible.-When a witness whom it is intended to corroborate gives
evidence of any relevant fact, he may be questioned as to any other
circumstances which he observed at or near to the time or place at
which such relevant fact occurred, if the Court is of opinion that
such circumstances, if proved, would corroborate the testimony of the
witness as to the relevant fact which he testifies.
A, an accomplice, gives an account of a robbery in which he took
part. He describes various incidents unconnected with the robbery
which occurred on his way to and from the place where it was
Independent evidence of these facts may be given in order to
corroborate his evidence as to the robbery itself.
Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later
testimony as to same fact.
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
What matters may be proved in connection with proved statement
relevant under section 32 or 33.
158. What matters may be proved in connection with proved
statement relevant under section 32 or 33.-Whenever any statement,
relevant under section 32 or 33, is proved, all matters may be proved
either in order to contradict or to corroborate it, or in order to
impeach or confirm the credit of the person by whom it was made, which
might have been proved if that person had been called as a witness and
had denied upon cross-examination the truth of the matter suggested.
When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory.
159. Refreshing memory. 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
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
Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason
for the non-production of the original.
An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional
Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in section 159.
160. Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in section
159.-A witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such
document as is mentioned in section 159, although he has no specific
recollection of the facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts
were correctly recorded in the document.
A book-keeper may testify to facts recorded by him in books
regularly kept in the course of business, if he knows that the books
were correctly kept, although he has forgotten the particular
Right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh memory.
1*161. Right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh
memory.-Any writing referred to under the provisions of the two last
preceding sections must be produced and shown to the adverse party if
he requires it; such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the
Production of documents.
Translation of documents.
162. Production of documents.-A witness summoned to produce a
document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to
Court, notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its
production or to its admissibility. The validity of any such objection
shall be decided on by the Court.
The Court, if it sees fit, may inspect the document, unless it
refers to matters of State, or take other evidence to enable it to
determine on its admissibility.
Translation of documents.-If for such a purpose it is necessary to
cause any document to be translated, the Court may, if it thinks fit,
direct the translator to keep the contents secret, unless the document
is to be given in
1. As to the application of s. 161 to police-diaries, see the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898), s. 172.
evidence: and, if the interpreter disobeys such direction, he shall be
held to have committed an offence under section 166 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860).
Giving, as evidence, of document called for and produced on notice.
163. Giving, as evidence, of document called for and produced on
notice.-When a party calls for a document which he has given the other
party notice to produce, and such document is produced and inspected
by the party calling for its production, he is bound to give it as
evidence if the party producing it requires him to do so.
Using, as evidence, of document production of which was refused on
164. Using, as evidence, of document production of which was
refused on notice.-When a party refuses to produce a document which he
has had notice to produce, he cannot afterwards use the document as
evidence without the consent of the other party or the order of the
A sues B on an agreement and gives B notice to produce it. At the
trial A calls for the document and B refuses to produce it. A gives
secondary evidence of its contents. B seeks to produce the document
itself to contradict the secondary evidence given by A, or in order to
show that the agreement is not stamped. He cannot do so.
Judge's power to put questions or order production.
165. Judge's power to put questions or order production.-The
Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant
facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any
witness, or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and
may order the production of any document or thing: and neither the
parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to
any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to
cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such
Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by
this Act to be relevant, and duly proved:
Provided also that this section shall not authorize any Judge to
compel any witness to answer any question or to produce any document
which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce
under sections 121 to 131, both inclusive, if the question were asked
or the document were called for by the adverse party; nor shall the
Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other person
to ask under section 148 or 149; nor shall he dispense with primary
evidence of any document, except in the cases hereinbefore excepted.
Power of jury or assessors to put questions.
166. Power of jury or assessors to put questions.-In cases tried
by jury or with assessors, the jury or assessors may put any questions
to the witnesses, through or leave of the
Judge, which the Judge himself might put and which he considers
OF IMPROPER ADMISSION AND REJECTION OF EVIDENCE
OF IMPROPER ADMISSION AND REJECTION OF EVIDENCE
No new trial for improper admission or rejection of evidence.
167. No new trial for improper admission or rejection of
evidence.-The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be
ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any
case, if it shall appear to the Court before which such objection is
raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted,
there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision, or that, if the
rejected evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the
THE SCHEDULE.--[Enactments repealed.] Rep. by the Repealing Act,
1938 (1 of 1938), s. 2 and Sch.