Home › CS Executive › jurisprudence › Indian Evidence Act 1872 › The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 extends to the who…
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 extends to the whole of India and applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, BUT does NOT apply to which of the following?
A{'text': 'Affidavits presented to any Court or officer, and to proceedings before an arbitrator', 'label': 'A'}
B{'text': 'Trials before any Court of original civil or criminal jurisdiction sitting in any State of the Union of India', 'label': 'B'}
C{'text': 'Trials in any Court of Session conducted by a Sessions Judge in any State of the Union of India', 'label': 'C'}
D{'text': 'Inquiries before any Magistrate of competent jurisdiction sitting in any State of the Union of India', 'label': 'D'}
Answer & Solution
Correct answer: A. {'text': 'Affidavits presented to any Court or officer, and to proceedings before an arbitrator', 'label': 'A'}
1. Lesson 11 reproduces the scope provision of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 verbatim.
2. The Act applies to all judicial proceedings in or before any Court, including Court-martial (other than Army Act/Navy Discipline Act/Air Force Act court-martials).
3. The Act does NOT apply to: (i) the excluded court-martials; (ii) **affidavits** presented to any Court or officer; and (iii) **proceedings before an arbitrator**.
4. Income-tax proceedings have also been held not to be "judicial proceedings" under the Act.
_Source: ICSI CS Executive Paper 1 — Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws, Lesson 11 (Indian Evidence Act, 1872), pp. 251-272._
Related questions
Lesson 11 explains the difference between **confession and admission**. Which statement isAccording to the lesson, the distinction between **relevancy and admissibility** under theLesson 11 explains the distinction between **logical relevancy** and **legal relevancy**. Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act allows certain **statements by persons who cannot beLesson 11 lists **different kinds of estoppel** recognised in Indian law. Which set lists In *Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghosh*, (1930) 30 Cal. 530 PC, the Privy Council laid down aThe general rule of **estoppel** under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act is based on Section 4 of the Indian Evidence Act distinguishes between **"may presume"**, **"shall pre