Section 136 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 136 : Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

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 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.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 136 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Mr. Jitendra Singh Rajendra Singh vs Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar I/By Nitin on 29 October, 2013 - Bombay High Court 

Mrs Mahabanoo Navroz Kotwal vs Piloo Fali Bomanji on 10 June, 2014 - Bombay High Court 

State Of Gujarat vs Shailendra Kamalkishor Pande on 29 June, 2007 - Gujarat High Court 

State Of Gujarat vs Ashulal Nanji Bisnol on 1 October, 2001 - Gujarat High Court 

Abid vs State on 17 June, 2010 - Gujarat High Court 

V. Arulkumar : vs The State on 5 March, 2013 - Madras High Court 

Ghewar Chand vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 November, 1996 - Rajasthan High Court 

Ram Singh & Ors vs Col. Ram Slngh on 7 August, 1985 - Supreme Court of India 

M/S. Supreme Chemiplast vs State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2014 - Karnataka High Court 

M/S.Reliance Industries Ltd. } vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 March, 2010 - Bombay High Court