AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 185

Section 14

Section 14 deals with relevancy of facts showing the existence of state of mind or of body or bodily feeling and contains two Explanations and 16 illustrations (a) to (p). In the 69th Report, the Commission observed (see para 8.154) that section 14 does not need any amendment, except in illustration (h) to the extent indicated in para 8.150 of the Report.

Illustration (h) reads as follows:

"(h) A is accused of the dishonest misappropriation of property which he had found, and the question is whether, when he appropriated it, he believed in good faith that the real owner could not be found.

The fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been given in the place where A was, is relevant, as showing that A did not in good faith believe that the real owner of the property could not be found.

The fact that A knew, or had reason to believe, that the notice was given fraudulently by C, who had heard of the loss of the property and wished to set up a false claim to it, is relevant as showing that the fact that A knew of the notice did not disprove A's good faith."

In para 8.150 of the 69th Report, the Commission stated as follows:

"Illustration (h), where it says that the fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been given in the place where A was, is relevant, assumes that some evidence would be given to show that the notice was within the knowledge of A, the accused. It would, therefore, be desirable to add the words "and in such a manner that A knew or probably might have known of it", after the words "in the place where A was" in illustration (h). We recommend accordingly."

We agree with this recommendation.

We note that illustrations (a), (b), (c) and (d) deal with knowledge, (e) with ill-will, (f), (g) and (h) with good faith, (i) and (j) with intention, (k) with state of mind, (l) and (m) with state of body, (n) with negligence, and (o) and (p) with scope of the Explanation. (see Sri Vepa P. Sarathi's commentary, 5th Ed., 2002 pp.63 to 68)



Review of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys