Section 161 secures an adverse party's right to obtain and inspect any writing used by a witness to refresh memory under the two preceding evidentiary provisions. Upon request, the writing must be produced and shown to that party, which may cross-examine the witness concerning it. The application of this right to police diaries is addressed through a separate procedural provision governing such diaries.

A witness may testify to facts stated in a document of the kind referred to in section 159 despite lacking specific recollection, if satisfied that the facts were correctly recorded. A book-keeper may testify about transactions recorded in regularly maintained business books if the book-keeper knows that the books were correctly kept, notwithstanding forgotten individual transactions.

Refreshing memory permits a witness under examination to consult a contemporaneous or shortly subsequent writing made personally, where the matter remained fresh in memory. A writing made by another person may also be used if it was read within that period and known to be accurate. A copy may be consulted with the Court's permission upon sufficient reason for non-production of the original. Experts may refer to professional treatises.

Export Declaration Form (EDF) filing under the FEMA (Export and Import of Goods and Services) Regulations, 2026, is queried as to whether it is compulsory for every exporter of goods or services. The issue concerns the reach of the EDF requirement across export categories and whether goods and services exporters are subject to a uniform filing obligation.

Proved statements relevant under sections 32 or 33 may be contradicted or corroborated, and the maker's credit may be impeached or confirmed. Matters may be proved where they could have been proved if the maker had been called as a witness and had denied the suggested matter on cross-examination. This enables testing of both the statement's reliability and the maker's credibility.

Corroboration of witness testimony permits proof of a witness's former statement concerning the same fact when made at or about the time of the occurrence, or before an authority legally competent to investigate that fact. The earlier statement may be proved in evidence to support the witness's later testimony, and its corroborative use requires both statements to relate to the same fact.

Section 156 permits questions to a witness intended to be corroborated about circumstances observed at or near the time or place of a relevant fact, where proof of those circumstances would support the witness's testimony. Independent evidence of collateral incidents connected by time or place may corroborate an accomplice's account of a robbery, including incidents occurring while travelling to or from the location.

Section 155 permits impeachment of a witness's credit through character evidence from persons acquainted with the witness, proof of bribery or other corrupt inducement, and prior inconsistent statements on matters capable of contradiction. A credibility witness cannot state reasons during examination-in-chief, though those reasons may be explored in cross-examination. The answers cannot be contradicted, but false answers may lead to a charge of false evidence.

The Court may, in its discretion, allow a party calling a witness to ask questions that could be asked in cross-examination by the adverse party. Permission is not automatic and remains subject to discretionary control. A party so permitted does not lose the entitlement to rely on any part of that witness's evidence, including favourable or otherwise relevant portions.

Section 153 restricts extrinsic evidence used to contradict a witness's answers to questions relevant only for shaking credibility by injuring character. Contrary evidence is generally excluded after such an answer, though a false answer may expose the witness to a charge of giving false evidence. Contradiction remains permissible for denied previous convictions, facts impeaching impartiality, or material facts in issue rather than mere character or credit.

The Court must forbid questions that appear intended to insult or annoy a witness. Questions that may be proper in subject matter must also be excluded where their form is needlessly offensive, preventing abusive or unnecessarily disparaging questioning during examination of witnesses.

Indecent and scandalous questions may be forbidden during witness examination, notwithstanding some relevance to matters before the Court. They may be allowed only where they relate to facts in issue or are necessary for determining whether those facts existed.

Questions asked without reasonable grounds during witness examination may lead the Court to report the circumstances to the High Court or other professional authority where the question was asked by a barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney subject to that authority's professional oversight. The power to report is discretionary and depends on the Court's opinion that reasonable grounds were absent.

Questions conveying imputations against a witness require reasonable grounds for believing the allegation is well-founded. Speculative or random accusations are not proper. Such grounds may arise from professional instructions or from court information supported by satisfactory reasons. Where nothing is known about a witness, an accusation made at random lacks a proper basis; however, unsatisfactory answers about the witness's lifestyle and means of living may justify further questioning.

The Court controls irrelevant character-based questions addressed to witnesses where they may affect credibility. It may decide whether a witness must answer and may warn that an answer is not required. Questions are proper only when the imputation would seriously affect credibility; they are improper when remote, of slight relevance, or disproportionate to the importance of the evidence. A refusal to answer may permit an inference that the answer would be unfavourable.

Section 147 governs when a witness is to be compelled to answer a question in examination. Where a question relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the provisions applicable under section 132 apply to that question for purposes of compulsion. The statutory scheme links relevance to the application of the section 132 provisions.

Cross-examination may test a witness's veracity, establish identity and position in life, or impeach credit by affecting character, even if answers may incriminate the witness or expose the witness to a penalty or forfeiture. Where consent is in issue in specified sexual-offence prosecutions or attempts, the victim's general immoral character or previous sexual experience cannot be used to prove consent or the quality of consent.

Cross-examination on relevant prior written statements may proceed without first showing or proving the writing. If the writing is intended to contradict the witness, the witness must first be confronted with the specific passages proposed for contradiction before the writing can be proved.

Evidence as to matters in writing restricts oral testimony concerning contracts, grants, dispositions of property, or document contents where production is required. An adverse party may object until the document is produced or entitlement to secondary evidence is established. Statements by others about document contents may nevertheless be proved orally when independently relevant, including to demonstrate motive.

Leading questions may be asked in cross-examination under the evidentiary rules governing examination of witnesses. This permission applies at the cross-examination stage and permits questions in leading form to be put to a witness during that stage. The rule identifies cross-examination as the point in witness examination at which leading questions are permissible.