Related Questions

X had made some communications to his wife Y during their marriage under Section 122 of the Evidence Act, the correct proposition are:
1. X can be compelled to disclose such communications before the Court, if Y consents, in any proceeding.
2. X can be compelled to disclose such communication whether Y consents or not in any proceedings
3. Y can be compelled to disclose such communication whether X consents or not in a divorce proceedings between them
4. Y may be permitted by Court, if deems fit, to disclose any such communication in a criminal proceedings not between X and Y.
No Judge or Magistrate can be compelled to answer any question as to his own conduct in Court as such Judge or Magistrate except upon the special order of:
Consider the following statements to answer this question.
1. Parliament cannot extend the jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court.
2. No discussion can take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of judge of the Supreme Court in discharge of the duties.
3. A retired judge of the Supreme Court cannot appear or plead in any court or before any authority within the territory of India.
4. The salaries and allowances of the Supreme Court are fixed by the Constitution and charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.
Which of these statement are correct?
Which of the following statement(s) is/are incorrect in the context of Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 regarding judge's power?
1. A Judge can ask any question he pleases, even irrelevant.
2. Judge may order production of any document or thing
3. Any party has right to make any objection to such question or order
4. The parties have inherent right to cross examine witness upon said question/answer.
Nothing in section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader attorney or vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence is provided by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under:
Choice the correct propositions:
1. Evidence of fingerprint expert is substantive evidence.
2. Evidence of fingerprint expert can be used only to corroborate some items of substantive evidence which are otherwise on record.
3. Evidence of fingerprint expert is not substantive evidence.
4. Evidence of fingerprint expert is admissible in all circumstances as expert evidence.
1. A Judicial Magistrate First Class can authorize the detention in custody, of a person accused of an offence triable by Special Court established under The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for a period not exceeding fifteen years.
2. The Special Court established under The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, cannot exercise the power to authorize the detention of accused in custody, as enunciated under Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The definition of 'use' under Section 2(xxviii-a) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, excludes personal consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
4. The High Court, by special order, may constitute as many Special Courts under The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, as necessary.
Which of the above statements are correct?
Select the incorrect statements:
1. The Indian Evidence Act does not apply to arbitration proceedings.
2. The Indian Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings before a Commissioner appointed by the court for recording evidence
3. The Indian Evidence Act applies to affidavits presented to Courts
4. The Indian Evidence Act applies to judicial proceedings held before all kinds of military courts
Assertion (A): An accused person cannot be compelled to give his thumb impression.
Reason (R): An accused person cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Confession of a co-accused, not required to be an oath and cannot be tested by cross examination
1. Is no evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of Evidence Act and cannot be the foundation of a conviction
2. The only limited use which can be made of a confession of a co-accused is by way of furnishing an additional reason for believing such other evidences as exists
3. It is a very weak type of evidence and is much weaker even than the evidence of an approver .
In the aforesaid propositions: