BIHAR JUDICIAL ACADEMY, GAI GHAT,

PATNA- 800007

“CASE COMPILATION OF SECTION 148 of CrPC, 1973 AND

SECTION 91, INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872”

SUMMER INTERNSHIP 2018

SUBMITTED BY

SHUBHAM KUMAR

2ND YEAR, 4TH SEMESTER

B.A.LL.B., CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973

The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is the main legislation on procedure for
administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was enacted in 1973 and came into
force on 1 April, 1974. It provides the machinery for the investigation of crime, apprehension
of suspected criminals, collection of evidence, determination of guilt or innocence of the
accused and the determination of punishment of the guilt. Additionally, it also deals with the
public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child and parents.

CHAPTER X OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:

MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC ORDER AND TRANQUILITY: D. DISPUTES AS TO

IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

Section 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Local Inquiry

Whenever a local inquiry is necessary for the purpose of section 145, 146 or 147, a District
Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Magistrate may depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to
make the inquiry, and may furnish him with such written instructions as may seem necessary
for his guidance, and may declare by whom the whole or any part of the necessary expenses
of the inquiry shall be paid. The report of the person so deputed may be read as evidence in
the case.

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

The Indian Evidence Act, originally passed in India by the Imperial Legislative Council in
1872, during the British Raj, contains a set of rules and allied issues governing admissibility
of evidence in the Indian courts of law. The enactment and adoption of the Act was a path-
breaking judicial measure introduced in India, which changed the entire system of concepts
pertaining to admissibility of evidences in the Indian courts of law. Until then, the rules of
evidences were based on the traditional legal systems of different social groups and
communities of India and were different for different people depending on caste, community,
faith and social position. The Indian Evidence Act introduced a standard set of law applicable
to all Indians.
CHAPTER VI OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872:

THE EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Section 91 of the Act: Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of
property reduced to form of document

When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been
reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to
be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of
such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document
itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in case in which secondary evidence is admissible
under the provisions herein contained.

CASE-LAWS:

1. Citation: 2005 (4) PLJR 679

Quorum: Dr. J.N. Bhatt, CJ and Shashank Kr. Singh, J.

Case: Jagdish Prasad v Chitragupta Pd. & Ors.

Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states deed of endowment to run
the trust- recital of the deed is eloquent and explicit- any person claiming right of
‘shebait’ of such endowment, on the oral version, cannot succeed for the simple
reason that no oral evidence can be received as admissible against the writings or
recitals in the deed-when the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other
disposition of property have been proved according to the provision of Section 91 of
the Act, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between
the parties to any such instrument or their representations in interest for the purpose of
contradicting, varying, additing to, or subtracting from, its written term.

2. Citation: 2006 (4) PLJR (SC) 55

Quorum: S.B. Sinha and Dalbeer Bhandari, JJ.
Case: Tulsi & Ors. V Chandrika Prasad & Ors.
Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 mainly forbids proving of the contents of
a writing otherwise than by writing itself and merely lays down the best evidence rule,
it however, does not prohibit the parties to adduce evidence, in a case, the deed is
capable of being construed differently to show how they understood the same.
3. Citation: 2007 (2) PLJR (SC) 55
Quorum: B.P. Sinha and P.K. Balasubramanyan
Case: M/S Bhandari Construction v Narayan Gopal Upadhye
Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states when the terms of the transaction
are reduced to writing, it is impossible to lead evidence to contradict its terms- case
set up in evidence being completely at variance with the case in the complaint, the
affidavit and evidence of respondent’s colleague clearly inadmissible.
4. Citation: 2009 (3) PLJR 867
Quorum: V.N. Sinha, J.
Case: Ram Prasad Sao v Sheo Prasad Sao
Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872- plea of fraud cannot be accepted in
absence of any pleadings and the evidence led on that behalf to prove the manner in
which fraud was played.
5. Citation: 2014 (2) PLJR 336
Quorum: Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
Case: Md. Asim & Ors. V Sri Ram Khelawan
Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872- specific recital made in sale
deed that chirkut and sale deed will be given to the plaintiff only after payment of
consideration money- chirkut and sale deed not given to the plaintiff- dispute over the
payment of consideration money- contrary pleading and evidence adduced by the
plaintiffs which are oral in nature is inadmissible- intention of the parties has to be
gathered from the contents of the document itself- no evidence of any oral agreement
or statement shall be admitted contrary to it- even in a case where recital is made in
the deed about payment of entire consideration money and delivery of possession but
if the registration receipt and possession is retained by the vendor then irrespective of
the recitals in the sale deed, the title, would not pass to the purchaser- suit for
declaration of title, possession and also for specific performance of contract dismissed
with cost.