BSA Section 141 — Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence

Summary

Sub-section (1) deals with how a Judge decides whether to admit evidence. When either side in a case wants to present evidence about a fact, the Judge can ask that side to explain how that fact, if proven, would be relevant to the case. The Judge must admit the evidence if he believes the fact would be relevant once proven, and must not admit it otherwise.

Sub-section (2) covers situations where evidence of one fact is only allowed if some other fact is proven first. In such cases, the other fact must be proven before the first fact can be presented as evidence, unless the party offering the evidence promises to prove that other fact and the Court is satisfied with that promise.

Sub-section (3) gives the Judge discretion when the relevance of one fact depends on another fact being proven first. The Judge may choose to either allow evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proven, or require the second fact to be proven before evidence of the first fact is given.

Illustration (a) gives an example: if someone wants to prove a statement made by a person who is said to be dead, and that statement is relevant under section 26, the fact that the person is dead must be proven before the statement itself can be given as evidence.

Illustration (b) gives another example: if someone wants to prove the contents of a document using a copy, because the original is said to be lost, the fact that the original is lost must be proven before the copy can be produced as evidence.

Illustration (c) gives an example involving a person accused of receiving stolen property while knowing it was stolen. If the prosecution wants to prove that the accused denied having the property, the relevance of that denial depends on the property being identified. The Court may either require the property to be identified before the denial is proven, or allow the denial to be proven before the property is identified.

Illustration (d) gives an example where a fact A is said to be the cause or effect of a fact in issue, but several intermediate facts B, C and D must be shown to exist first. The Court may either allow A to be proven before B, C or D is proven, or require proof of B, C and D before allowing proof of A.

Official Text

(1) 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 otherwise.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

Illustrations.

(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 26. The fact that the person is dead must be proved by the person proposing to prove the statement, before evidence is given of the statement.

(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 been stolen. It is proposed to prove that he denied the possession of the property. 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 a 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.

Sections referred to

• BSA §26 — Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant

Related Judgments

• The State of Maharashtra; (Ori. Complt.) vs 1. Sayeed Mohd. Hanif Abdul Rahim,, 2. Ashrat @ Arshad Shafiq Ahmed An — Bombay High Court (Mumbai Principal Seat) (2012)
• Date of decision:15.12.2009; SANYOGTA PRAKASH vs DHIRA BALA MALHOTRA & ORS — Delhi High Court (2009)
• Vilas Yeshwant Mitkar. vs The State of Maharashtra, and 3 Ors — Bombay High Court (Mumbai Principal Seat) (2010)
• Ramkuber Mahavir Singh; ... vs The Maharashtra Housing and Area, Development Authority and Ors., … — Bombay High Court (Mumbai Principal Seat) (2026)

Old <-> New Code Mapping

• IEA §136 — Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence