Download One cardinal rule of evidence is that where written documents exist they must be produced and more Thesis Law of Evidence in PDF only on Docsity!
Territorial Extent as per The Indian
Evidence Act, 1872
Part 1, Chapter 1 and Section 1 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 state about the extent of the Indian Evidence Act. It plainly expresses the way that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reaches out to the whole of India. It additionally applies to all the legal procedures in or under the watchful eye of the any Court including the Court-martial, other than the Court-martial convened under the Army Act, Naval Discipline Act or the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act 1934 , or the Air Force Act yet not to affidavits produced to any Court, officer nor to procedures before an arbitrator.
Applicability of The Indian Evidence Act
Concept
As already stated in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that it also deals with its applicability. Evidence is the law of those matters which are completely governed by the law of the country in which the proceeding takes place irrespective of the fact whether a witness is competent or not, whether certain evidence proves certain fact of not. Therefore, the lex fori determines all the questions which are related to the admission or rejection of evidence.
Relevant Cases based on the Application
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, also defines what a Court is. As the above-mentioned Section, the Court incorporates all the appointed authorities or judges and Magistrates, and every other individual, with the exception of arbitrators who are lawfully authorized to take evidence.
Likewise, an enquiry is judicial if the object of which is to be resolved has a jural connection or relation between one individual and another or a group of people; or between him or the community generally. It had been held on account of Queen v. Tulja (1887) 12 Bom. 36, 42 that an enquiry where evidence is lawfully taken can be remembered for the term of the judicial proceeding.
In any case, an enquiry about issues of reality wherein no discretion is practiced or no judgment is to be framed, however, some are being done as a specific method for an obligation or duty, then at
that point, it forms administrative enquiry rather than a judicial enquiry. Similarly, in the case of, Queen-Empress v. Bharma (1886) 11 Bom. 702 FB, it had been held that procedure before a Magistrate who isn’t authorized to direct an enquiry is not a judicial proceeding in any case.
It had been held in the case of Munna Lal v. State of U.P AIR 1991, All 189, 1991 Cr LJ 1893, that a Family Court also falls inside the ambit of the significance and articulation of Court. The statutory provisions additionally don’t have any significant bearing before an arbitrator. Consequently, an arbitrator will undoubtedly comply with the standards of natural justice. They are not limited to the specialized technique of the rule of evidence.
The Indian Evidence Act additionally doesn’t also apply to the affidavit.
Different Views And Decisions As To The
Applicability: Important Findings
Prior to Independence, the Act was applied to what was known as the “British India” and “British Burma”. However, the definition of “British India” was amended under Section 3(5) of the General Clauses Act, 10 of 1897. In this way, 26 January 1950, India pronounced itself as a Sovereign, Democratic, Republic and immediately Burma was likewise announced as the Independent Republic from 23rd March 1956.
⊗ Judicial proceeding
The term Judicial Proceeding is defined under this Act. However, it had been held by Justice Spankie in the case of R v. Gholam (1875) ILR 1 All that judicial proceeding can be expressed as any procedure over the course of which evidence is or might be taken, or in which any judgment, sentence or final order is passed on recorded evidence. The Court has to perform administrative or executive and legal obligations all together so that in a judicial proceeding, the adjudicator or the magistrate must act in a judicial capacity.
⊗ Evidence Act if applicable to the arbitration
procedure
rule 1,2 of the Code Of Civil Procedure 1908. It, therefore, stated that an affidavit cannot be treated as evidence unless an order has been passed under Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In the case of Radhakrishnan v. Navoraton Mal Jain A 1990 Raj 127, 130, it had been held that when there was no order of the court under Order 19 rule 1, affidavits filed by the parties without giving them the opportunity of cross-examining the deponents, cannot be treated as evidence.
⊗ Affidavits filed suo moto
An affidavit that is recorded suo moto by a party without having any direction from the Court can’t be named as false evidence. But it had been held in the case of Delhi Lotteries v. Rajesh Agarwal AIR 1998 Del 332, that no action under the Indian Penal Code can be taken against the deponent.
⊗ Affidavits in Interlocutory application
Where the Court is explicitly allowed to choose the interlocutory issues on affidavit, it draws the provision of Order 19 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which can’t be squeezed into service. It, hence, brings the terms and impediments endorsed by request 19 rules 1 and 2 will be connected just if the Court practices the general authority or power which is vested in it. The scrutiny of wordings of rule 1 of Order 39 unmistakably shows that interlocutory application for interim injunctions, the Court had been explicitly allowed by the legislature itself to choose such applications on affidavit.
On account of B.N. Munibasappa v. G.D. Swamigal AIR 1959 Mys. 139 , the Mysore High Court held that while it would not be right to state that evidence can’t be viewed as evidence despite the fact that its property delivered under rule 1, and 2 of Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore plainly an affidavit can never replace an evidence recorded in a common manner except, if the case is one to which the arrangement of the provisions apply or the evidence identifies with an issue like an application for a connection or an order as to which the code itself had made express opinion.
In the case of Kailash Nath Agarwal v. Amar Nath Agarwal AIR 1969 All 82, it had been held that by importing legal fiction, the affidavits on record of the proceeding may also be placed by the Civil Court as affidavit under Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Code and may also be filed or read in evidence and cross-examination may also be permitted.
⊗ Domestic enquiry
In the case of State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh AIR 1977 SC 1512 , it had been held that the rule of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply to the domestic enquiry. Similarly in the case of K.L. Shinda v. State of Mysore AIR 1976 SC 1080, the rule of evidence doesn’t apply to departmental proceeding as well. However, again there is a contradictory view in the case of Balkrishna Mesra v. Presiding Officer, Orissa (1977) 35 Fac LR 11 (SC), that there is no bar on the part of the competent authority to rely on evidence in disciplinary proceedings.
⊗ Applicability of the Act to Tribunal
It is an established fact that domestic tribunals are not bound by the specialized principles of methodology as are contained in the Evidence Act.
On account of B.Bhimrajee v. Union AIR 1971 Cal 336, it had been held that the rule of evidence has no application in the departmental proceeding and the examination witnesses need not be in the request set somewhere around the said Act. Specialized standards of the Evidence Act don’t make a difference to the residential enquiry yet substantive rules which structure the part of the principle of natural justice, such that it can’t be disregarded in Domestic Tribunals. This had been held on account of Central Bank v. P.C.Jain AIR 1969 SC 983.
The Act has no application to enquiries directed by the Courts despite the fact that they might be legal in character. It had been held in the case of Union of India v. T. R. Verma AIR 1957 SC 882, that it is the requirement of law that such Tribunals ought to watch rules of natural justice in the conduct of enquiry.
⊗ Application of the Act to the Commissioner
The Evidence Act doesn’t strictly apply to enquiries conducted by domestic Tribunals. This had been held in the case of Ahmed v. Chief Commissioner AIR 1966 Mani 18.
However, a Commission appointed by Code Of Civil Procedure and Code of Criminal Procedure has the power to summon the witness and evidence, and the rules of evidence apply to the proceedings before him.
Evidence is not to put limitations and restrictions on the parties rather it acts as a guiding factor for the Courts to take evidence.
