Relevancy and admissibility:

The word “relevant” is not co-extensive with the word “admissible”. A relevant fact is a fact that
has a certain degree of probative forces and it is fully defined in Articles 19 to 24 of QSO.
Under article 18 to 69, certain facts are relevant but all are not admissible in evidence.

Relevant Evidence:

Relevant Evidence is evidence that makes a fact more or less likely to be true than it would be
without the evidence. Relevant evidence may be excluded for unfair prejudice, confusion, or
waste of time. Relevant evidence is generally admissible and irrelevant evidence is never
admissible. Two leading principles on relevance:

 that nothing is to be received which is not logically probative of some matter requiring to
be proved; and
 that everything which is thus probative should come in, unless a clear ground of policy
or law excludes it. Relevancy exists as a relation between an item of evidence and a
proposition sought to be proved.

Admissibility:

Admissibility means that the facts which are relevant are only admissible by the Court.
Admissibility of fact and of evidence is done based on its relevancy in respect to the fact in the
issue of the case. It is generally considered that first the question of relevancy arises and after
that the question of admissibility. The court will admit on relevant facts. During trial, one party
proposes to prove a particular fact by any evidence. The question on the admissibility of
evidence arises whether or not the evidence can be accepted to prove the fact. In any case,
initially, the question of admissibility of evidence arises after the admissibility of evidence has
been accepted the said fact shall be considered by the court to be used for deciding the case or
not.

Difference between relevancy and admissibility:

 Relevancy admires what seems to be logical and probable. Whereas there is no concept
of logic in admissibility. It strictly follows the rules of law. Anything cannot be admitted
merely because it appears to be logical.
  The facts which are relevant may or may not be admissible in court. It is not necessary
that if a fact is relevant, it will be admitted by the court. Whereas the facts which are
admissible in the court of law are undoubtedly relevant. For a fact to be admitted, it needs
to be logically and legally relevant.
Illustration:
In privilege communications under QSO, communication between husband and wife is
relevant but not admissible.
And in any case, film is a admission piece of evidence if it is relevant in case.
 Relevancy is a sub specie of admissibility and admissibility is the genre.

Where confession is relevant but not admissible?

All admissible evidences are relevant but all relevant evidences are not admissible. The
confession as a piece of evidence appears to be very relevant because it is inexplicable that why
any person will deliver a statement against his own interests however, it's not admissible in all
cases.

Conclusion:

So, conclusion is that relevancy and admissibility both are different and not synonyms to each
other. Relevancy of facts is a question of law and objection on relevancy can be raised at any
stage of suit. Evidence only be given on relevant facts so, these must be proved. And the method
and procedure by which relevancy of any fact is proved is called admissibility.