Report No. 14

Section H

Law of Evidence

144. Are you of the view that some of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act tend to cause delay in the disposal of civil and criminal matters? If so, please state the provisions and indicate suitable amendments?

145. Would you be in favour of giving summary powers to courts to punish witnesses who have clearly committed perjury in the enquiry before the courts? Would the grant of such powers, in your opinion, help to eradicate perjury or reduce the number of false claims or defences?

146. Would you empower the officers presiding over courts to interfere and terminate, if necessary, the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of particular witnesses or to refuse to hear additional oral evidence on particular points?

147. Should the provisions of section 90 of the Evidence Act be made applicable to certified copies of documents thirty years old although the copies themselves may not be thirty years old?

148. Would you be in favour of relaxing to some extent the present rule against the admission of hearsay evidence? If so, please indicate the manner and extent the which such relaxation should be made?

149. Are delays in the disposal of cases caused by the need for the production of certified copies of public documents?

150. Would you be in favour of permitting parties, by consent, to give secondary evidence of such documents in some form in order to obviate such delays?

151. It has been said that our law of evidence needs to be modernized. Do you agree? If so, have you any suggestions to make in that direction?

152. Are you generally in favour of leaving much larger power than at present in the presiding judge to regulate, shorten and refuse the admission of evidence?

153. Should the scope of the provisions relating to judicial notice in section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act be enlarged? If so, to what extent?

154. Would you amplify the scope of the rules relating to the admission of secondary evidence? If so, how?

Back

Index

Next