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

Report No. 185

Section 125

In paras 67.17 to 67.21 in the 69th Report, the Commission considered the need for change and dealt with cases of malicious prosecution. It was felt that it would be difficult for the plaintiff to produce evidence unless he knew the name of the informant on whose information another person made a false complaint to the police or a criminal proceeding was started in a Court.

The Commission then referred to three alternative proposals (see para 67.21) and finally came to the conclusion that the third one which gave discretion to the Court was the best. It said that the section requires some relaxation.

Section 125 of the Act is too stringent and is not on par with today's concepts in England, Canada and other countries.

We agree that the third alternative stated in para 67.21 of the 69th Report and the recommendation for insertion of an 'Exception' as stated in para 67.22 below section 125. We agree with the said recommendation.

Thus, below section 125, we recommend the following Exception to be added:

"Exception.- Nothing in this section shall apply where it appears to the Court that the giving of the information is a fact in issue on which the liability of a party depends or is otherwise a material fact, and the Court, for reasons to be recorded and in the interests of justice, directs the disclosure of such information by the Magistrate, Police officer or Revenue officer".

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