PROVISIONS IN LAW RELEVANT TO EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES,

UNDER THE EXAMINATION IN CHIEF

Short Summary of the Note:

Order XVIII Rule 4 to 17 of the CPC are relevant with respect to examination of
witnesses under examination in chief
 Full Chapter X of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from Section 135-166 is relevant
with respect to examination of witnesses, examination in chief
 The readings from the Bare Act have been mentioned. Case laws have been given
wherever necessary

1. EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES IS THERE IN ORDER XVIII OF RULE 4 TO

17 IN THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

 Order XVIII Rule 4

4. Recording of evidence.—(1) In every case, the examination-in-chief of a

witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite
party by the party who calls him for evidence:

Provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the
documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed along
with affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court.

(2) The evidence (cross-examination and re-examination) of the witness in

attendance, whose evidence (examination-in-chief) by affidavit has been
furnished to the Court, shall be taken either by the Court or by the
Commissioner appointed by it:

Provided that the Court may, while appointing a commission under this sub-
rule, consider taking into account such relevant factors as it thinks fit.

(3) The Court or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall record evidence
either in writing or mechanically in the presence of the Judge or of the
Commissioner, as the case may be, and where such evidence is recorded by the
Commissioner he shall return such evidence together with his report in writing
signed by him to the Court appointing him and the evidence taken under it shall
form part of the record of the suit.
 (4) The Commissioner may record such remarks as it thinks material
respecting the demeanour of any witness while under examination:

Provided that any objection raised during the recording of evidence before
the Commissioner shall be recorded by him and decided by the Court at the
stage of arguments.

(5) The report of the Commissioner shall be submitted to the Court

appointing the commission within sixty days from the date of issue of the
commission unless the Court for reasons to be recorded in writing extends the
time.

(6) The High Court or the District Judge, as the case may be, shall prepare a
panel of Commissioners to record the evidence under this rule.

(7) The Court may by general or special order fix the amount to be paid as
remuneration for the services of the Commissioner.

(8) The provisions of Rules 16, 16-A, 17 and 18 of Order XXVI, in so far as they
are applicable, shall apply to the issue, execution and return of such commission
under this rule.]

Calcutta High Court Amendment:

Rule 4-A CALCUTTA.—

Insert Rule 4-A as under:—

“4-A. Panel of Commissioners in all Courts within the District.—

(1) The District Judge shall prepare a panel of Commissioners for all the Courts
within the District in consultation with the seniormost Civil Judge and such other
Judge of each sub-division he thinks fit.

There shall be separate panels of such Commissioners for each sub-division of

the District from the lawyers having minimum practice of three years. After such
selection, the empanelled Commissioners will be given training on the relevant
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act under the
supervision of the District Judge or such other Civil Judge of the sub-division, as
he directs, for a short period.

(2) All such Commissions will be held in the Court premises after the usual Court
-hours or on any holiday according to the convenience of the Court and the
Commissioner and after each day's sitting, the Commissioner shall hand over all
the documents and materials to the officer of the Court specially assigned with
such duty to take charge of such documents and materials to be preserved in
safe custody and those will be again handed over to the Commissioner on the
next day before the start of the Commission.

(3) The Commissioner shall maintain a day-to-day order-sheet regarding the

progress of the case indicating (i) the names of the witnesses cross-examined
or re-examined and objections, if any, raised during their examination and how
those objections were disposed of; (ii) record of the documents or materials
exhibited; (iii) demeanour of any witness, when considered necessary, after
recording objection, if any, raised by any of the parties.

(4) If a party calling a witness wants to cross-examine his own witness, the
Commissioner shall record such fact and refer the matter to the Court for
its decision on the point.”

—Inserted by Kolkata Gazette, Extra., dt. 7-12-2006.

Note.—They shall apply to all civil courts throughout the territories in relation to which, the
High Court, Calcutta, exercises its jurisdiction (w.e.f. 7-12-2006).

► Nature and scope.—Where the plaintiff tendered evidence by affidavit and the
defendant did not cross-examine him despite several opportunities given to him. If
the trial court and the High Court accepted the plaintiff's evidence which remained
unrebutted and unchallenged and also relied upon the documents produced by the
plaintiff, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the trial court in
decreeing the plaintiff's suit or any illegality has been committed by the High Court in
dismissing the first appeal, Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal v. M.S.S. Food Products,
(2012) 2 SCC 196 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 705.
Where the defendant-appellant could not examine attesting witness of will as the
witness was not granted leave, there being no deliberate negligence or inaction on
part of appellants closing of evidence by trial court was a failure of justice, Amrit Lal
Kapoor v. Kusum Lata Kapoor, (2010) 6 SCC 583 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 742.
► Examination of witness.—Under Order 18, Rule 4(1) (as substituted by Act 22
of 2002), examination chief of witness produced without summons, held, must be
inform of an affidavit, however in case of summoned witnesses, principle
incorporated in Order 18, Rule 4(1) can be waived. It is in the court's discretion to
direct summoned witness to file affidavit in appropriate cases or require him to be
present in court for recording of evidence, Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of
India, (2003) 1 SCC 49.
Under Order 18, Rule 4(2) (as substituted by Act 22 of 2002), cross-examination or
re-examination of witness whose evidence given in form of affidavit, held, may be
carried out by court or by Commissioner appointed by it, Salem Advocate Bar Assn.
v. Union of India, (2003) 1 SCC 49.
► Recording of statement of witness.—Under Order 18, Rule 4(3) CPC (as
substituted by Act 22 of 2002), whenever the evidence is recorded by the
Commissioner it will be advisable that there should be simultaneously at least an
audio recording of the statement of the witnesses so as to obviate any controversy at
a later stage, Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2003) 1 SCC 49.

 Order XVIII Rule 5

5. How evidence shall be taken in appealable cases.—In cases in which an appeal

is allowed, the evidence of each witness shall be,—

(a) taken down in the language of the Court,—

(i) in writing by, or in the presence and under the personal direction and
superintendence of, the Judge, or

(ii) from the dictation of the Judge directly on a typewriter; or

(b) if the Judge, for reasons to be recorded, so directs, recorded mechanically in

the language of the Court in the presence of the Judge.]

► Nature and scope.—Where witnesses affidavit is tendered in evidence, affidavit is

already on oath/affirmation and is therefore not required to be reproved by deponent,
Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal v. M.S.S. Food Products, (2012) 2 SCC 196 : (2012)
1 SCC (Civ) 705.

 Order XVIII Rule 6

6. When deposition to be interpreted.—Where the evidence is taken down in

language different from that in which it is given, and the witness does not
understand the language in which it is taken down, the evidence as taken down
in writing shall be interpreted to him in the language in which it is given.

 Order XVIII Rule 7

7. Evidence under Section 138.—Evidence taken down under Section 138 shall
be in the form prescribed by Rule 5 and shall be read over and signed and, as
occasion may require, interpreted and corrected as if it were evidence taken
down under that rule.
  Order XVIII Rule 8

8. Memorandum when evidence not taken down by Judge.—Where the evidence

is not taken down in writing by the Judge, [or from his dictation in the open
Court, or recorded mechanically in his presence,] he shall be bound, as the
examination of each witness proceeds, to make a memorandum of the
substance of what each witness deposes, and such memorandum shall be
written and signed by the Judge and shall form part of the record.

High Court Amendments

CALCUTTA : ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS.—Omit Rule 8 (6-7-1967).

 Order XVIII Rule 9

9. When evidence may be taken in English.—(1) Where English is not the

language of the Court, but all the parties to the suit who appear in person, and
the pleaders of such of the parties as appear by pleaders, do not object to
having such evidence as is given in English, being taken down in English, the
Judge may so take it down or cause it to be taken down.

(2) Where evidence is not given in English but all the parties who appear in
person, and the pleaders of such of the parties as appear by pleaders, do not
object to having such evidence being taken down in English, the Judge may take
down, or cause to be taken down, such evidence in English.

 Order XVIII Rule 10

10. Any particular question and answer may be taken down.—The Court may, of
its own motion or on the application of any party or his pleader, take down any
particular question and answer, or any objection to any question, if there
appears to be any special reason for so doing.

High Court Amendment

CALCUTTA: ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS.—After the words “take down”

add a comma and thereafter the words “or cause to be taken down from his
dictation in open Court, in the language of the Court or in English.” (6-7-1967).
  Order XVIII Rule 11

11. Questions objected to and allowed by Court.—Where any question put to a

witness is objected to by a party or his pleader, and the Court allows the same to
be put, the Judge shall take down the question, the answer, the objection and
the name of the person making it, together with the decision of the Court
thereon.

High Court Amendment

CALCUTTA : ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS.—Same as that under Rule 10 of
Order XVIII.

 Order XVIII Rule 12

12. Remarks on demeanour of witnesses.—The Court may record such remarks

as it thinks material respecting the demeanour of any witness while under
examination.

High Court Amendment

CALCUTTA : ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ISLANDS.—Add the following at the end of

the rule: “Or cause the same to be recorded under his dictation in open Court, in
the language of the Court or in English.” (6-7-1967).

 Order XVIII Rule 13

13. Memorandum of evidence in unappealable cases.—In cases in which an

appeal is not allowed, it shall not be necessary to take down or dictate or record
the evidence of the witnesses at length; but the Judge, as the examination of
each witness proceeds, shall make in writing, or dictate directly on the
typewriter, or cause to be mechanically recorded, a memorandum of the
substance of what the witness deposes, and such memorandum shall be signed
by the Judge or otherwise authenticated, and shall form part of the record

 Order XVIII Rule 15

15. Power to deal with evidence taken before another Judge.—(1) Where a Judge
is prevented by death, transfer or other cause from concluding the trial of a suit,
his successor may deal with any evidence or memorandum taken down or made
under the foregoing rules as if such evidence or memorandum had been taken
down or made by him or under his direction under the said rules and may
proceed with the suit from the stage at which his predecessor left it. (2) The
provisions of sub-rule (1) shall, so far as they are applicable, be deemed to apply
to evidence taken in a suit transferred under Section 24.

 Order XVIII Rule 16

16. Power to examine witness immediately.—(1) Where a witness is about to

leave the jurisdiction of the Court, or other sufficient cause is shown to the
satisfaction of the Court why his evidence should be taken immediately, the
Court may, upon the application of any party or of the witness, at any time after
the institution of the suit, take the evidence of such witness in manner
hereinbefore provided. (2) Where such evidence is not taken forthwith and in the
presence of the parties, such notice as the Court thinks sufficient, of the day
fixed for the examination, shall be given to the parties. (3) The evidence so taken
shall be read over to the witness, and, if he admits it to be correct, shall be
signed by him, and the Judge shall, if necessary, correct the same, and shall sign
it, and it may then be read at any hearing of the suit.

 Order XVIII Rule 17

17. Court may recall and examine witness.—The Court may at any stage of a suit
recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of
evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court
thinks fit.

► Recalling of witness.—Power under Order 18, Rule 17 is only for clarification,

i.e. to enable court to clarify any issue or doubt it may have in regard to evidence led
by parties by recalling any witness so that court itself can put questions to such
witness and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such
clarification, court may, of course, permit parties to assist it by putting some
questions. However, this power under Order 18, Rule 17 is not intended to be used
to fill up omissions in evidence of a witness who has already been examined, K.K.
Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 665.
► “The court may recall”.—Order 18, Rule 17 is not intended to be used to fill up
omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. Main
purpose of Order 18, Rule 17 is to enable court to clarify any doubts that may have
arisen during the course of his examination.
Court may recall a witness either on its own motion or on application by any party to
the suit. Prejudice is not a ground for exercise of power by court. If evidence on re-
examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, trial court
may permit recall of such witness for re-examination-in-chief permission to
defendants to cross-examine the witness, Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar v.
Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 198.
Some of the principles akin to Order 47 CPC may be applied when a party makes an
application under the provisions of Order 18, Rule 17 CPC, but it is ultimately within
the court's discretion, if it deems fit, to allow such application, Vadiraj Nagappa
Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410 : (2009) 2 SCC
(Civ) 198.
► How power may be exercised.—Power of court to recall and examination of
witness can be exercised to obtain clarification or removal of doubt on any point. For
this purpose court may permit parties to assist it by examining the witness but power
cannot be invoked to fill up any omission or lacuna in evidence already led by
witness or on ground that thereby no prejudice would be caused to parties. Power
being discretionary should be exercised sparingly, while ensuring that trial would not
be protracted thereby, Ram Rati v. Mange Ram, (2016) 11 SCC 296 : (2016) 4 SCC
(Civ) 174.
Application seeking invocation of powers under this rule, is not allowable when
attempt is to fill up omission/lacunae in evidence already led by witness, for instance
“for further elaboration on left out points”, Ram Rati v. Mange Ram, (2016) 11 SCC
296 : (2016) 4 SCC (Civ) 174

2. Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; provisions with regards to the examination of
Witness is given in Chapter X from section 135- 166

135. Order of production and examination of witnesses.—The order in

which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and
practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively,
and, in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court.
 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.

137. Examination-in-chief.—The examination of a witness by the party who

calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief.

Cross-examination.—The examination of a witness by the adverse party

shall be called his cross-examination.

Re-examination.—The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-

examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.

138. Order of examinations.—Witnesses shall be first examined-in chief

then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling
him so desires) re-examined.

The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the
cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness
testified on his examination-in-chief.

Direction of re-examination.—The re-examination shall be directed to the

explanation of matters referred to in cross-examination; and if new matter is, by
permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may
further cross-examine upon that matter.

139. Cross-examination of person called to produce a document.—A

person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the
mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he
is called as a witness.

140. Witnesses to character.—Witnesses to character may be cross-

examined and re-examined.
 141. Leading questions.—Any question suggesting the answer which the
person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question.

142. When they must not be asked.—Leading questions must not, if

objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-
examination, except with the permission of the Court.

The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are

introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been already
sufficiently proved.

143. When they may be asked.—Leading questions may be asked in cross-

examination.

144. Evidence as to matters in writing.—Any witness may be asked, whilst

under examination, whether any contract, grant or other disposition of property,
as to which he is giving evidence, was not contained in a document, and if he
says that it was, or if he is about to make any statement as to the contents of
any document, which, in the opinion of the Court, ought to be produced, the
adverse party may object to such evidence being given until such document is
produced, or until facts have been proved which entitle the party who called the
witness to give secondary evidence of it.

Explanation.—A witness may give oral evidence of statements made by other

persons about the contents of documents if such statements are in themselves
relevant facts.

147. When witness to be compelled to answer.—If any such question

relates to a matter relevant to the suit or proceeding, the provisions of Section
132 shall apply thereto.

148. Court to decide when question shall be asked and when witness
compelled to answer.—If any such question relates to a matter not relevant to
the suit or proceeding, except insofar as it affects the credit of the witness by
injuring his character, the court shall decide whether or not the witness shall be
compelled to answer it, and may, if it thinks fit, warn the witness that he is not
obliged to answer it. In exercising its discretion, the Court shall have regard to
the following considerations—
(1) such questions are proper if they are of such a nature that the truth of the
imputation conveyed by them would seriously affect the opinion of the Court as
to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he testifies;

(2) such questions are improper if the imputation which they convey relates to
matters so remote in time, or of such a character, that the truth of the
 imputation would not affect, or would affect in a slight degree, the opinion of the
Court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter to which he testifies;

(3) such questions are improper if there is a great disproportion between the
importance of the imputation made against the witness's character and the
importance of his evidence;

(4) the Court may, if it sees fit, draw, from the witness's refusal to answer, the
inference that the answer if given would be unfavourable.

149. Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds.—No such

question as is referred to in Section 148 ought to be asked, unless the person
asking it has reasonable grounds for thinking that the imputation which it
conveys is well-founded.

Illustrations

(a) A barrister is instructed by an attorney or vakil that an important witness

is a dakait. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness whether he is a
dakait.

(b) A pleader is informed by a person in Court that an important witness is a

dakait. The informant, on being questioned by the pleader, gives satisfactory
reasons for his statement. This is a reasonable ground for asking the witness
whether he is a dakait.

(c) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, is asked at random

whether he is a dakait. There are here no reasonable grounds for the question.

(d) A witness, of whom nothing whatever is known, being questioned as to his

mode of life and means of living, gives unsatisfactory answers. This may be a
reasonable ground for asking him if he is a dakait.

150. Procedure of Court in case of question being asked without

reasonable grounds.—If the Court is of opinion that any such question was
asked without reasonable grounds, it may, if it was asked by any barrister,
pleader, vakil or attorney, report the circumstances of the case to the High Court
or other authority to which such barrister, pleader, vakil or attorney is subject in
the exercise of his profession.

151. Indecent and scandalous questions.—The Court may forbid any

questions or inquiries which it regards as indecent or scandalous, although such
questions or inquiries may have some bearing on the questions before the
Court unless they relate to facts in issue, or to matters necessary to be known in
order to determine whether or not the facts in issue existed.
 152. Questions intended to insult or annoy.—The Court shall forbid any
question which appears to it to be intended to insult or annoy, or which, though
proper in itself, appears to the Court needlessly offensive in form.

153. Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to questions testing

veracity.—When a witness has been asked and has answered any question
which is relevant to the inquiry only insofar as it tends to shake his credit by
injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but if he
answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence.

Exception 1.—If a witness is asked whether he has been previously convicted

of any crime and denies it, evidence may be given of his previous conviction.

Exception 2.—If a witness is asked any question tending to impeach his

impartiality, and answers it by denying the facts suggested, he may be
contradicted.

154. Question by party to his own witness.—179[(1)] The Court may, in its
discretion, permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him
which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.

[(2) Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under
180

sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.]

► Eyewitness.—If persons cited as eyewitnesses by investigating agency

retract from their versions made before police, then either they have been wrongly
projected as eyewitnesses or they have for right or wrong reasons resiled from their
earlier narration. In both eventualities, investigation has to be faulted as inefficient,
incomplete and incautions with inevitable consequence of failure of prosecution in
the case in hand. Such a fallout also spells a dismal failure of State machinery as a
pivotal stakeholder in process of justice dispensation to protect and assure
witnesses of their safety and security so as to fearlessly testify the truth, Pooja
Pal v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135.

► Hostile witness.—Whenever a prosecution witness turns hostile, his

testimony cannot be discarded altogether, Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi, (2016)
3 SCC 108.

155. Impeaching credit of witness.—The credit of a witness may be

impeached in the following ways by the adverse party, or, with the consent of
the Court, by the party who calls him—
 (1) by the evidence of persons who testify that they, from their knowledge of the
witness, believe him to be unworthy of credit;

(2) by proof that the witness has been bribed, or has 181[accepted] the offer of a bribe,
or has received any other corrupt inducement to give his evidence;

(3) by proof of former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence which is
liable to be contradicted.

(4) 182[* * *]

Explanation.—A witness declaring another witness to be unworthy of credit

may not, upon his examination-in-chief, give reasons for his belief, but he may
be asked his reasons in cross-examination, and the answers which he gives
cannot be contradicted, though, if they are false, he may afterwards be charged
with giving false evidence.

156. Questions tending to corroborate evidence of relevant fact,

admissible.—When a witness whom it is intended to corroborate gives evidence
of any relevant fact, he may be questioned as to any other circumstances which
he observed at or near to the time or place at which such relevant fact occurred,
if the Court is of opinion that such circumstances, if proved, would corroborate
the testimony of the witness as to the relevant fact which he testifies.

157. Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later

testimony as to same fact.—In order to corroborate the testimony of a
witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact,
at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally
competent to investigate the fact, may be proved.

158. What matters may be proved in connection with proved statement

relevant under Section 32 or 33.—Whenever any statement, relevant under
Section 32 or 33, is proved, all matters may be proved, either in order to
contradict or to corroborate it, or in order to impeach or confirm the credit of
the person by whom it was made, which might have been proved if that person
had been called as a witness and had denied upon cross-examination the truth
of the matter suggested.

159. Refreshing memory.—A witness may, while under examination, refresh

his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the
transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the
Court considers it likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his
memory.
 The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person,
and read by the witness within the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it
to be correct.

When witness may use copy of document to refresh memory.—

Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document, he
may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such document:

Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-
production of the original.

An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises.

160. Testimony to facts stated in document mentioned in Section 159.—

A witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is
mentioned in Section 159, although he has no specific recollection of the facts
themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document.

161. Right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh memory.—Any writing

referred to under the provisions of the two last preceding sections must be
produced and shown to the adverse party if he requires it; such party may, if he
pleases, cross-examine the witness thereupon.

162. Production of documents.—A witness summoned to produce a

document shall, if it is in his possession or power, bring it to the Court,
notwithstanding any objection which there may be to its production or to its
admissibility. The validity of any such objection shall be decided on by the Court.

The Court, if it sees fit, may inspect the document, unless it refers to matters
of State, or take other evidence to enable it to determine on its admissibility.

Translation of documents.—If for such a purpose it is necessary to cause

any document to be translated, the Court may, if it thinks fit, direct the translator
to keep the contents secret, unless the document is to be given in evidence :
and, if the interpreter disobeys such direction, he shall be held to have
committed an offence under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860).

163. Giving, as evidence, of document called for and produced on notice.

—When a party calls for a document which he has given the other party notice
to produce, and such document is produced and inspected by the party calling
for its production, he is bound to give it as evidence if the party producing it
requires him to do so.

164. Using, as evidence, of document, production of which was refused

on notice.—When a party refuses to produce a document which he has had
notice to produce, he cannot afterwards use the document as evidence without
the consent of the other party or the order of the Court.

165. Judge's power to put questions or order production.—The Judge

may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any
question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties,
about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any
document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to
make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the
Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such
question:

Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Act to
be relevant, and duly proved:

Provided also that this section shall not authorize any Judge to compel any
witness to answer any question, or to produce any document which such
witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under Sections 121 to
131, both inclusive, if the question were asked or the document were called for
by the adverse party; nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be
improper for any other person to ask under Section 148 or 149; nor shall he
dispense with primary evidence of any document, except in the cases
hereinbefore excepted.

166. Power of jury or assessors to put questions.—In cases tried by jury or

with assessors, the jury or assessors may put any questions to the witnesses,
through or by leave of the Judge, which the Judge himself might put and which
he considers proper.

3. CASE LAWS (UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT)

► Analysis of chief-examination alongwith cross-examination of witnesses.

—Truth in criminal trial is discovered by not merely going through cross-examination
of witnesses, but, there must be analysis of chief-examination of witnesses in
conjunction with cross-examination and re-examination, if any. Effect of what other
witnesses have deposed, must also enter into consideration of matter, Girish
Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2020) 18 SCC 423.

► Repudiation of suggestion given to witness.—A suggestion to a witness

when repudiated can have no relevance at all in the absence of any material
produced, in accordance with law, to prove the factum suggested, certainly, subject
to admissibility. A different approach in reappreciating the evidence would have
defeated dispensation of justice, as in cases based on circumstantial evidence also it
is not the quantity of the evidence that counts, but it is its quality. In other words, the
question is only whether a complete chain of circumstantial evidence of such a
character that the same is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and
is consistent only with his guilt, is available, Veerendra v. State of M.P., (2022) 8
SCC 668.

► Duty and authority of trial Judge.—Presiding Officer should decide objections to

questions, during the course of the proceeding, or failing it at the end of the
deposition of the witness concerned. In given cases, if the court is of the opinion that
repeated objections have been taken, the remedy of costs, depending on the nature
of obstruction, and the proclivity of the line of questioning, may be resorted to,
Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In re, (2021) 10
SCC 598.