JUDGMENTS OF COURTS OF JUSTICE WHEN RELEVANT 40. . - 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. =============... ... ...

SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Revenue : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR For the Assessee : Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, A.Rs. ORDER PER : SIDDHARHTA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER :- This is an appeal filed by the Department against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, in proceeding u/s 250 vide order dated 21/12/2023 passed for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Revenue has raised the f... ... ...

HOW MUCH OF A STATEMENT IS TO BE PROVED ^1[39. . - 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 is contained in part of electronic record or of a connected series of letters or papers, evidence shall be given of so much and no more of the statement, conversation, document, electronic record, book or series of letters or papers as the Court consi... ... ...

38. . - 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, is relevant. =============... ... ...

37. . - 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 ^1[of the United Kingdom] or in any ^2[Central Act, Provincial Act or ^3[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 M... ... ...

Section 36 recognises statements concerning facts in issue or relevant facts as relevant when appearing in maps or charts published for general public sale, or in maps or plans prepared under Central or State Government authority. Relevance is limited to matters customarily depicted or recorded in those materials.

An entry in a public or official book, register, record or electronic record is a relevant fact if it states a fact in issue or other relevant fact and is made in the discharge of official duty. The entry may be made by a public servant or by another person carrying out a duty specifically imposed by the law of the country where the record is maintained.

STATEMENTS MADE UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES 34. . - ^1[Entries in the books of account, including those maintained in an electronic form], 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. Illustration 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 entr... ... ...

33. . - Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised 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... ... ...

STATEMENTS BY PERSONS WHO CANNOT BE CALLED AS WITNESSES 32. . - 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: - (1) When it relates to cause of death. - When the statement is ... ... ...

Admissions are not conclusive proof of matters admitted, but may operate as estoppels where applicable provisions governing estoppel are satisfied. Their evidentiary character remains non-final, although they may have binding legal consequences that prevent a party from departing from an admitted position in circumstances governed by estoppel, as legally applicable.

Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a court, where more than one person is jointly tried for the same offence, to take into consideration a proved confession made by one accused that affects both its maker and one or more co-accused. Consideration is discretionary and may operate against the confessor as well as the implicated co-accused.

Confessions that are otherwise relevant remain legally relevant despite circumstances surrounding their procurement or making. Relevance is not displaced merely because the confession was made under a promise of secrecy, obtained through deception practised on the accused, made while the accused was drunk, or given without warning that it could be used as evidence against them.

A confession previously affected by an inducement, threat, or promise becomes relevant if it is made after that influence has been fully removed. Relevance depends on the Court's opinion that the impression created by the earlier inducement, threat, or promise has been completely dispelled.

Discovery-based admissibility permits proof of information received from an accused person in police custody when it leads to discovery of a fact. Proof is confined to so much of the information as distinctly relates to the fact discovered, irrespective of whether the information amounts to a confession.

Section 26 creates an evidentiary bar against proving a confession made by a person while in police custody. Proof is permitted only where the confession is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. A village head discharging magisterial functions is excluded from the meaning of Magistrate unless exercising magisterial powers under criminal procedure law, while a coroner is recognised as a Magistrate for this purpose.

Composite sampling created by mixing contents of separately recovered bags before drawing samples may fail to establish what each bag contained, making it material to bail assessment under the NDPS Act. Although statutory bail restrictions apply, substantial pre-trial custody, failure to frame charges, and an unlikely early conclusion of trial may make continued detention disproportionate to the Article 21 guarantee of personal liberty. These factors support conditional bail under the criminal procedure framework where the sampling defect and trial delay are present.

Confessions made to a police officer cannot be proved against a person accused of an offence. The exclusion operates as an evidentiary restriction on using a police-obtained confessional statement against the accused in criminal proceedings. The provision addresses admissibility in relation to proof against the accused, while statements made to a police officer during investigation are separately associated with the procedural treatment of investigative statements.

A confession is irrelevant in criminal proceedings if it was caused by an inducement, threat or promise related to the charge, proceeding from a person in authority. The influence must be sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds to believe that confession would secure a temporal advantage or avoid a temporal evil in relation to the proceedings.

Admissions in civil cases are irrelevant where made on an express condition that they will not be proved, or where circumstances permit the Court to infer a mutual agreement against their use in evidence. This protection does not exempt a barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil from giving evidence of matters on which they may be compelled to give evidence under section 126.