Section 110 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 110 : Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proof as to ownership.—When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 110 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Manindra Mohan Sanyal vs Emperor on 22 April, 1918 - Calcutta High Court
Rajendra Narayan Singh vs Emperor on 12 September, 1912 - Calcutta High Court
The Secretary Of State For India vs Chimanlal Jamnadas on 14 October, 1941 - Bombay High Court
J.S. Parkar vs V.B. Palekar And Ors. on 27 April, 1973 - Bombay High Court
Chiddu vs The State on 26 April, 1951 - Madhya Pradesh High Court
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs S. Pichaimanickan Chettiar on 3 August, 1982 - Madras High Court
Hausu Dhondba Uike vs Sahebrao Chintaman Salam on 15 January, 2014 - Bombay High Court
Monindra Mohan Sanyal And Ors. vs Emperor on 22 April, 1918 - Calcutta High Court
Emperor vs Kumera And Ors. on 18 December, 1928 - Allahabad High Court
Kanti Lal vs Smt. Shanti Devi And Ors. on 28 May, 1997 - Rajasthan High Court 

Section 109 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 109 : Section 109 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proof as to relationship in the cases of partners, landlord and tenant, principal and agent.—When the question is whether persons are partners, landlord and tenant, or principal and agent, and it has been shown that they have been acting as such, the burden of proving that they do not stand, or have ceased to stand, to each other in those relationships respectively, is on the person who affirms it.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 109 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
N.A. Subrahmania Aiyar vs Queen Empress on 30 April, 1900 - Madras High Court
Emperor vs Barendra Kumar Ghose on 26 September, 1923 - Calcutta High Court
The King Emperor vs Barendra Kumar Ghose on 26 September, 1923 - Calcutta High Court
Sangram Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 30 September, 1977 - Rajasthan High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Raghu @ Raghavbhai Vashrambhai on 25 January, 2002 - Gujarat High Court
Santosh Boro And Ors. vs State Of Meghalaya on 26 March, 2008 - Gauhati High Court
Bhima Shaw And Ors. vs The State on 10 January, 1956 - Orissa High Court
Binani Properties Private Ltd. vs M. Gulamali Abdul Hossain And Co. on 10 August, 1966 - Calcutta High Court
Arjun Singh vs State Of H.P on 6 February, 2009 - Supreme Court of India
Mohar Singh vs Deen Dayal Gupta on 11 October, 1996 - Delhi High Court 

Section 108 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 108 : Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.—1[Provided that when] the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is 2[shifted to] the person who affirms it.—1[Provided that when] the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is 2[shifted to] the person who affirms it."

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 108 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Radha Gajapathi Raju vs Assistant Controller Of Estate on 12 June, 1998 - Madras High Court
Zishan Khan vs District Inspector Of Schools on 2 March, 2012 - Allahabad High Court
M. Venkata Seshamma vs Brahmandam Venkata Kusala Rao on 22 October, 2007 - Andhra High Court
Geddeam Damayanti And Anr. vs Geddam Akkamma And Ors. on 26 September, 2007 - Andhra High Court
Tadepalli Ram Rathnam vs Kantheti Varadarajulu And Ors. on 29 August, 1969 - Andhra High Court
Mustt. Amrana Begum Mazumdar vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 1 February, 2006 - Gauhati High Court
Shankareppa vs Shivarudrappa And Ors. on 27 July, 1962 - Karnataka High Court
Gurdit Singh And Ors. Etc vs Munsha Singh And Ors. Etc on 29 November, 1976 - Supreme Court of India
K.I. Pavunny vs Assistant Collector (Head ... on 3 February, 1997 - Supreme Court of India
R. Gopala Pathar vs N. Jayalakshmi Ammal And Ors. on 15 June, 1984 - Madras High Court 

Section 107 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 107 : Section 107 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within thirty years.—When the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is shown that he was alive within thirty years, the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 107 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Tadepalli Ram Rathnam vs Kantheti Varadarajulu And Ors. on 29 August, 1969 - Andhra High Court
Ramachandra Sadashiv Sidras Oka vs Keshav Dhondu Narvekar And Ors. on 9 November, 1922 - Bombay High Court
Mustt. Amrana Begum Mazumdar vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 1 February, 2006 - Gauhati High Court
Geddeam Damayanti And Anr. vs Geddam Akkamma And Ors. on 26 September, 2007 - Andhra High Court 

Section 106 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 106 : Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations
(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 106 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Digambar Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 23 February, 2015 - Allahabad High Court
Dharmendra vs State Of U.P. on 6 August, 2010 - Allahabad High Court
Vishal Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 2 April, 2014 - Delhi High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Satish Purushottam Aushal on 24 September, 2014 - Bombay High Court
Vinod Kumar Bhutani vs State Thr. Cbi on 28 May, 2013 - Delhi High Court
Jethalal Nanalal vs State Of Gujarat on 3 May, 1967 - Gujarat High Court
Ravindra Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. on 2 May, 2014 - Allahabad High Court
Ram Kumar Singh vs The State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2015 - Allahabad High Court
Gandalal And Ors vs State on 20 March, 2013 - Rajasthan High Court
Parmal Singh vs State on 20 March, 2013 - Rajasthan High Court 

Section 105 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 105 : Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions.—When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Illustrations
(a) A, accused of murder, alleges that, by reason of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of the act. The burden of proof is on A.
(b) A, accused of murder, alleges, that by grave and sudden provocation, he was deprived of the power of self-control. The burden of proof is on A.
(c) Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860), provides that whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be subject to certain punishments. A is charged with voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 325. The burden of proving the circumstances bringing the case under section 335 lies on A. COMMENTS Plea of self-defence When the prosecution has established its case, it is incumbent upon the accused, under section 105 to establish the case of his private defence by showing probability; Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Mad). The burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of material on record; Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 105 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968 - Allahabad High Court
Parbhoo And Ors. vs Emperor on 16 September, 1941 - Allahabad High Court
Yusuf Sk. And Ors. vs The State on 12 January, 1954 - Calcutta High Court
Vijayee Singh And Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 20 April, 1990 - Supreme Court of India
Yusuf Sk. And Ors. vs The State on 12 January, 1954 - Calcutta High Court
Aamad @ Kalu Abdulbhai Majothi vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 1998 - Gujarat High Court
Indra Bahadur Singh & Others vs State Of U.P. on 18 January, 2010 - Allahabad High Court
Behram Khurshed Pesikaka vs The State Of Bombay on 24 September, 1954 - Supreme Court of India
Friday vs By Adv. Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan - Kerala High Court 

Section 104 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 104 : Section 104 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible.—The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence. Illustrations
(a) A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B. A must prove B’s death.
(b) A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a lost document. A must prove that the document has been lost.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 104 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Pukhraj Pannalal Shah And Ors. vs K.K. Ganguly And Anr. on 9 November, 1967 - Bombay High Court
Illias vs Collector Of Customs, Madras on 31 October, 1968 - Supreme Court of India
Sat Pal vs Sunaina Devi on 8 August, 2006 - Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Posha Rangu Mhatre Since Deceased on 30 September, 2005 - Bombay High Court
Kidavunnil Paduvilan Madhavi vs Kidavunnil Paduvilan Janaki Amma on 17 December, 2009 - Kerala High Court
Ramesh Chandra Mehta vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 October, 1968 - Bombay High Court
Sulaiman vs Venkatesan on 23 December, 2014 - Madras High Court
Rajamani Nainar, Krishna Moorthy vs Subramaniam on 15 March, 2006 - Madras High Court
Bhagirathi Burhia And Ors. vs The State on 30 September, 1964 - Orissa High Court
K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008 - Madras High Court

Section 103 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 103 : Section 103 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proof as to particular fact.—The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.

Illustration 1[(a) ] A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission. B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.

COMMENTS Plea of alibi Plea of alibi taken by accused, it is he who has to prove it; State of Haryana v. Sher Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1021: 1981 SC Cr R 317: 1981 Cr LJ 714: (1981) 2 SCC 300.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 103 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Pormanan vs P.Thiagarajan on 8 December, 2010 - Madras High Court 

S. Madasamy Thevar vs A.M. Arjuna Raja on 27 March, 2000 - Madras High Court 

Gautam vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 July, 2010 - Bombay High Court 

Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968 - Allahabad High Court 

Parbhoo And Ors. vs Emperor on 16 September, 1941 - Allahabad High Court 

Curch Of South India Trustees vs M.P.Saleena Daniel @ Baby on 15 July, 2010 - Kerala High Court 

Smt.Sukhwati Bai vs Manphool Narwariya on 1 May, 2015 - Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Food Corporation Of India vs Presiding Officer And Anr. on 28 July, 1999 - Gauhati High Court 

Sawal Das vs State Of Bihar on 9 January, 1974 - Supreme Court of India 

Maulvi A.R.M. Abdul Wahed And Ors. vs Nagendra Chandra Lahiri And Ors. on 11 June, 1940 - Calcutta High Court 

Section 102 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 102 : Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

On whom burden of proof lies.—The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Illustrations
(a) A sues B for land of which B is in possession, and which, as A asserts, was left to A by the will of C, B’s father. If no evidence were given on either side, B would be entitled to retain his possession. Therefore the burden of proof is on A.
(b) A sues B for money due on a bond. The execution of the bond is admitted, but B says that it was obtained by fraud, which A denies. If no evidence were given on either side, A would succeed, as the bond is not disputed and the fraud is not proved. Therefore the burden of proof is on B.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 102 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Narayan Govind Gavate Etc vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 1976 - Supreme Court of India
Parbhoo And Ors. vs Emperor on 16 September, 1941 - Allahabad High Court
Ashitkumar vs Sonalben on 13 October, 2008 - Gujarat High Court
Jogendra Krishna Banerji And Ors. vs Sm. Subasini Dassi And Ors. on 19 February, 1941 - Calcutta High Court
Vellappan vs Peter Thomas on 23 January, 1979 - Kerala High Court
Naresh K. Rajwani vs Rufina M. Pinto And Anr. on 8 February, 2005 - Bombay High Court
Vijayee Singh And Ors vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 20 April, 1990 - Supreme Court of India
P. Rajeshkumar Bagmar vs Swathi Rajeshkumar Bagmar on 28 November, 2007 - Madras High Court
Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968 - Allahabad High Court
Radhy Shyam(D)Thr. Lrs & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 15 April, 2011 - Supreme Court of India

Section 101 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 101 : Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Illustrations
(a) A desires a Court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.
(b) A desires a Court to give judgment that he is entitled to certain land in the possession of B, by reason of facts which he asserts, and which B denies, to be true. A must prove the existence of those facts.

COMMENTS Joint family property Merely because some of properties continue to stand in the name of plaintiff that by itself cannot lead to any conclusion that the property purchased by any one member of the family would necessarily be a part of joint family property and when evidence shows that the person who has purchased property had been engaged in an independent business for a sufficient long period; Baban Girju v. Namdeo Girju Bangar, AIR 1999 Bom 46.

Reasonable proof of ownership In absence of any reasonable proof that defendant was the actual owner of the property, and plaintiff was only a name given does not prove that respondent was owner and plaint maker was only a name given to the property; Rama Kanta Jain v. M.S. Jain, AIR 1999 Del 281.

What to be proved by prosecution It is well settled that the prosecution can succeed by substantially proving the very story it alleges. It must stand on its own legs. It cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defence. Nor can the court on its own make out a new case for the prosecution and convict the accused on that basis; Narain Singh v. State, (1997) 2 Crimes 464 (Del).

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 101 Indian Evidence Act 1872:
Parbhoo And Ors. vs Emperor on 16 September, 1941 - Allahabad High Court
Narayan Govind Gavate Etc vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 October, 1976 - Supreme Court of India
S.P. Gupta vs President Of India And Ors. on 30 December, 1981 - Supreme Court of India
Ishar Das vs The Administer, Union Territory on 31 March, 1975 - Delhi High Court
S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 December, 1981 - Supreme Court of India
Rishi Kesh Singh And Ors. vs The State on 18 October, 1968 - Allahabad High Court
Pormanan vs P.Thiagarajan on 8 December, 2010 - Madras High Court
Ashitkumar vs Sonalben on 13 October, 2008 - Gujarat High Court
P. Rajeshkumar Bagmar vs Swathi Rajeshkumar Bagmar on 28 November, 2007 - Madras High Court 

Section 117 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 117 : Section 117 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange, bailee or licensee.—No acceptor of a bill of exchange shall be permitted to deny that the drawer had authority to draw such bill or to endorese it; nor shall any bailee or licensee be permitted to deny that his bailor or licensor had, at the time when the bailment or licence commenced, authority to make such bailment or grant such licence. Explanation 1.—The acceptor of a bill of exchange may deny that the bill was really drawn by the person by whom it purports to have been drawn. Explanation 2.—If a bailee delivers the goods bailed to a person other than the bailor, he may prove that such person had a right to them as against the bailor.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 117 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Punjab National Bank vs Britannia Industries Ltd. on 3 April, 2001 - Calcutta High Court 

Bhaiganti Bewa vs Himmat Bidyakar And Ors. on 11 May, 1916 - Calcutta High Court 

Head Const. Hardev Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 11 January, 2000 - Punjab-Haryana High Court 

Gurudas Mangruji Kamdi vs The Honble Chancellor on 8 October, 2014 - Bombay High Court 

Hargovind Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 February, 2002 - Gauhati High Court 

Ratan Roy vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 14 March, 1950 - Patna High Court - Cites 59 

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr on 23 April, 1963 - Supreme Court of India 

State Of Maharashtra vs Chandraprakash Kewal Chand Jain on 18 January, 1990 - Supreme Court of India 

Section 116 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 116 : Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession.—No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 116 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Arjun Lal vs Kundan Lal on 10 October, 2012 - Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur 

Venkata Chetty vs Aiyanna Goundan on 7 August, 1916 - Madras High Court 

Inder Mohan Singh & Ors. vs Sube Singh on 10 November, 2014 - Delhi High Court 

D. Sreenivasa Mudaliar Charity vs Dhanasekaran And Ors. on 9 July, 2001 - Madras High Court 

Sky Land International Pvt. Ltd. vs Kavita P Lalwani on 25 May, 2012 - Delhi High Court 

Smt. Ragini Narayan W/O Late B.S. vs Smt. Minnie Narayan on 19 November, 2007 - Karnataka High Court 

Union Bank Of India vs Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd. on 6 August, 2001 - Calcutta High Court 

Section 115 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 115 : Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Estoppel. —When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing. Illustration A intentionally and falsely leads B to believe that certain land belongs to A, and thereby induces B to buy and pay for it. The land afterwards becomes the property of A, and A seeks to set aside the sale on the ground that, at the time of the sale, he had no title. He must not be allowed to prove his want of title.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 115 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs Doon Apartments (P) Ltd. on 7 July, 1978 - Delhi High Court 

V.P. Padmanabhan Nair And Ors. vs Grasim Industries, Mavoor on 22 May, 1997 - Kerala High Court 

Kally Nath Dutta vs Shew Bux Mohata And Anr. on 19 July, 1949 - Calcutta High Court 

Shah Prabhudas Ishwardas vs Coprarceners Of A Joint Hindu on 11 April, 1967 - Gujarat High Court  

Manak Chand And Ors. vs Rameshwar And Ors. on 17 April, 2003 - Rajasthan High Court 

King Emperor vs Karri Venkanna Patrudu on 18 August, 1916 - Madras High Court 

Against The Judgment In vs By Adv. Sri.K.B.Pradeep on 6 July, 2000 - Kerala High Court  

Rati Singh And Anr. vs Ram Prasad Singh And Anr. on 15 January, 1970 - Patna High Court 

University Of Delhi vs Ashok Kumar Chopra And Anr. on 9 October, 1967 - Delhi High Court  

Gadigeppa Bhimappa Meti vs Balangowda Bhimangowda on 8 April, 1931 - Bombay High Court 

Section 134 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 134 : Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Number of witnesses.—No particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 134 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

The State Of Maharashtra vs Sunil Vishnu Ombase on 27 January, 2015 - Bombay High Court 

Namdeo vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 March, 2007 - Supreme Court of India 

Public Prosecutor vs Subban Chettiar on 11 April, 1969 - Madras High Court 

Rakesh Kumar vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 5 September, 2013 - Delhi High Court 

Vadivelu Thevar vs The State Of Madras(With ... on 12 April, 1957 - Supreme Court of India 

Mohammed Salim Ibrahim Qureshi vs State Of Gujarat on 3 March, 2006 - Gujarat High Court 

Sudha Krishna Halder vs Jyotsna Halder on 5 August, 2009 - Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) 

Chellammal vs Packiam And Ors. on 24 October, 1975 - Madras High Court 

State vs Rengasamy Naidu on 27 April, 1981 - Madras High Court 

Section 133 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 133 : Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Accomplice.—An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 133 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Muthukumaraswami Pillai vs King-Emperor on 17 April, 1912 - Madras High Court 

Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar on 13 July, 1994 - Supreme Court of India 

Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar With Gurbachan on 13 July, 1994 - Supreme Court of India 

Muralidharan vs State, Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 13 August, 1996 - Madras High Court 

Gopi Chand Alias Pappu vs State on 2 August, 2013 - Delhi High Court 

Raksha Jindal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 5 March, 2015 - Delhi High Court 

Sitaram Sao @ Mungeri vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 November, 2007 - Supreme Court of India 

Mrinal Das & Ors vs State Of Tripura on 5 September, 2011 - Supreme Court of India 

Section 132 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 132 : Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Witness not excused from answering on ground that answer will criminate.—A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind:

(Proviso) —Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 132 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

M.S. Associates vs Uoi on 22 March, 2005 - Gauhati High Court 

R.Dineshkumar @ Deena vs State Rep. By on 13 November, 2014 - Madras High Court  

Nisha Jain vs State on 17 March, 2015 - Delhi High Court 

R.Dineshkumar@Deena vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police on 16 March, 2015 - Supreme Court of India  

Dr. Roop vs Commissioner, Income Tax, Meerut on 2 March, 2012 - Allahabad High Court 

Elavarthi Peddabba Reddi vs Iyyala Varada Reddi on 27 November, 1928 - Madras High Court 

M.P. Gangadharan vs State S.I. Of Police on 20 July, 1989 - Kerala High Court 

Emperor vs Kazi Dawood Kazi on 18 July, 1925 - Bombay High Court 

Section 131 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 131 : Section 131 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

roduction of documents or electronic records which another person, having possession, could refuse to produce.—No one shall be compelled to produce documents in his possession or electronic records under his control, which any other person would be entitled to refuse to produce if they were in his possession, or control, unless such last-mentioned person consents to their production.]2[131. Production of documents or electronic records which another person, having possession, could refuse to produce.—No one shall be compelled to produce documents in his possession or electronic records under his control, which any other person would be entitled to refuse to produce if they were in his possession, or control, unless such last-mentioned person consents to their production.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 131 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Dr. Roop vs Commissioner, Income Tax, Meerut on 2 March, 2012 - Allahabad High Court 

M/S. Kuriland (P) Ltd vs P.J. Thomas on 5 September, 2008 - Kerala High Court 

Ito vs Anoj Kumar Agarwalla on 20 September, 2001 - Gauhati High Court 

Itc Bhadrachalam Paperborads vs Mandal Revenue Officer on 9 September, 1996 - Supreme Court of India 

Atul Kumar Jain vs Deputy Commissioner on 21 September, 1998 - Delhi High Court 

Kanraj vs Vijai Singh on 30 August, 1950 - Rajasthan High Court 

Kumarasami Chetti vs T.R. Subramania Iyer on 17 January, 1952 - Madras High Court 

Naresh Parnami And Anr vs R P S C Ajmer on 31 May, 2013 - Rajasthan High Court 

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

Narendra Singh Mewada Ors vs R P S C Ajmer on 31 May, 2013 - Rajasthan High Court 

Section 130 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 130 : Section 130 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Production of title-deeds of witness not a party.—No witness who is not a party to a suit shall be compelled to produce his title-deeds to any property, or any document in virtue of which he holds any property as pledgee or mortgagee, or any document the production of which might tend to criminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking the production of such deeds or some person through whom he claims.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 130 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Imrit Chamar vs Sridhar Panday And Ors. on 29 August, 1911 - Calcutta High Court 

Kanraj vs Vijai Singh on 30 August, 1950 - Rajasthan High Court 

P.Dharmachand vs State (Inspector Of Police on 5 August, 2013 - Madras High Court 

Basheshar Nath vs The Commissioner on 19 November, 1958 - Supreme Court of India 

R.K. Jain vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 May, 1993 - Supreme Court of India 

Ramakrishnan vs V.S. Kuttan Pillai And Anr. on 16 March, 1978 - Kerala High Court 

Ranjit Ram vs State on 3 April, 1961 - Allahabad High Court 

Rajib Panda vs Lakhan Sendh Mahapatra And Ors. on 18 July, 1899 - Calcutta High Court  

Moher Sheikh And Ors. vs Queen-Empress on 28 August, 1893 - Calcutta High Court 

Jitendra Nath Gupta And Ors. vs Emperor on 30 July, 1936 - Calcutta High Court 

Section 129 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 129 : Section 129 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Confidential communications with legal advisers.—No one shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any confidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal professional adviser, unless he offers himself as a witness, in which case he may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence which he has given, but no others.

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 129 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Larsen & Toubro Limited vs Prime Displays (P) Ltd., Abiz on 15 March, 2002 - Bombay High Court 

Municipal Corporation vs Vijay Metal Works on 13 March, 1981 - Bombay High Court 

Gurunanak Provisions Stores vs Dulhonumal Savanmal And Ors. on 16 April, 1993 - Gujarat High Court 

Arignar Anna Weavers vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 27 January, 1999 - Madras High Court 

Bai Bhanbai Mavji vs Kanbi Karshan Devraj And Anr. on 17 June, 1969 - Gujarat High Court 

Lakshmipat Choraria vs State on 17 January, 1964 - Bombay High Court 

Council Of The Institute vs Ajay Kumar Gupta on 28 February, 2012 - Delhi High Court 

Khatri & Ors. Etc vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 10 March, 1981 - Supreme Court of India 

Manickam And Ors. vs Kanakam And Ors. on 27 September, 1990 - Kerala High Court 

Section 128 Indian Evidence Act

IEA 128 : Section 128 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Privilege not waived by volunteering evidence.—If any party to a suit gives evidence therein at his own instance or otherwise, he shall not be deemed to have consented thereby to such disclosure as is mentioned in section 126; and if any party to a suit or proceeding calls any such barrister, 1[pleader], attorney or vakil as a witness, he shall be deemed to have consented to such disclosure only if he questions such barrister, attorney or vakil on matters which, but for such question, he would not be at liberty to disclose.—If any party to a suit gives evidence therein at his own instance or otherwise, he shall not be deemed to have consented thereby to such disclosure as is mentioned in section 126; and if any party to a suit or proceeding calls any such barrister, 1[pleader], attorney or vakil as a witness, he shall be deemed to have consented to such disclosure only if he questions such barrister, attorney or vakil on matters which, but for such question, he would not be at liberty to disclose."

India's Important Case Laws and Landmark Judgments on IEA - Section 128 Indian Evidence Act 1872:

Raghbir Singh Gill vs Gurcharan Singh Tohra & Ors on 9 May, 1980 - Supreme Court of India 

All India Lawyers Union vs State Of Kerala on 19 August, 2004 - Kerala High Court 

Commissioner Of Asansol vs Kinema Industries Private Ltd. on 20 March, 1985 - Calcutta High Court 

Ijjatali Talukdar And Anr. vs Emperor on 23 June, 1943 - Calcutta High Court 

Chadalavada Subba Rao vs Kasu Brahmananda Reddy And Ors. on 13 December, 1965 - Andhra High Court 

Meet Road Lines vs United India Insurance Company on 12 July, 2005 - Andhra High Court 

Ramesh Chandra Mehta vs The State Of West Bengal on 18 October, 1968 - Bombay High Court 

Deepchand vs Sampathraj on 24 March, 1969 - Karnataka High Court 

Ayeasha Bi vs Peerkhan Sahib And Ors. on 5 January, 1953 - Madras High Court 

Ramesh Kumar Arora vs Bhola Nath & Ors. on 29 March, 2011 - Delhi High Court