IEA 136 to BSA 141: Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence
Section 136 IEA (1872) replaced by Section 141 BSA (2023)
IEA 136 to BSA 141 at a Glance
Section 136 IEA (Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence) is now Section 141 BSA, in force from 1 July 2024. Only the section number changed.
What Changed From IEA 136 to BSA 141?
Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 became Section 141 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 on 1 July 2024. No substantive change. The three paragraphs are now sub-sections (1) to (3), and Illustration (a) now refers to section 26 in place of section 32.
IEA 136 vs BSA 141: Comparison Table
| Aspect | IEA 1872 (repealed) | BSA 2023 (in force) |
|---|---|---|
| Section | 136 | 141 |
| Heading | Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence | Same |
| Sub-sections | None | 3 sub-sections |
| Cross-references | s.32 | s.26 |
IEA 136 and BSA 141: Bare Act Text Side by Side
IEA 1872 (repealed)
Section 136, IEA 1872
136. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.—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.
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.
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 32.
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 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.
BSA 2023 (in force)
Section 141, BSA 2023
141. Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence.—(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.
When It Applies: IEA 136 vs BSA 141
Under IEA 136
- When either party in a case wants to place any fact in evidence, the Judge may ask that party how the alleged fact would be relevant if proved.
- The Judge must admit the proposed evidence if the Judge thinks that the fact would be relevant once proved, and must not admit it otherwise.
- When a proposed fact is admissible only after some other fact is proved, the party must prove that other fact first, unless the party gives an undertaking to prove it that satisfies the Court.
- When one alleged fact is relevant only if another alleged fact is proved first, the Judge has discretion to allow proof of the first fact before proof of the second fact, or to require proof of the second fact first.
Under BSA 141
- Under Section 141(1) BSA, when either party wants to place any fact in evidence, the Judge may ask that party how the alleged fact would be relevant if proved.
- Under Section 141(1) BSA, the Judge must admit the proposed evidence if the Judge thinks that the fact would be relevant once proved, and must reject it otherwise.
- Under Section 141(2) BSA, when a proposed fact is admissible only upon proof of another fact, that other fact must be proved first, unless the party gives an undertaking to prove it that satisfies the Court.
- Under Section 141(3) BSA, when one alleged fact is relevant only if another alleged fact is proved first, the Judge has discretion to allow proof of the first fact before proof of the second fact, or to require proof of the second fact first.
What IEA 136 to BSA 141 Means in Practice
Section 136 IEA became Section 141 BSA on 1 July 2024 with no substantive change. The paragraphs are numbered as sub-sections (1) to (3), and Illustration (a) refers to Section 26 BSA in place of Section 32 IEA. The same rule on how a Judge decides the admissibility and order of evidence applies, and parties should cite Section 141 BSA for matters governed by the Adhiniyam.
Disclaimer: This comparison is for informational purposes only. The new criminal laws came into effect on 1 July 2024. Consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.
Sources: Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ·