When oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevant
Introduction
Section 22 of Indian Evidence Act deals with the admissibility of oral admissions as to the contents of documents. Oral admissions are statements made by a party to a proceeding, which are relevant to the matters in dispute. Oral admissions can be made directly or indirectly, and can be either express or implied.
General Rule
The general rule under Section 22 of Indian Evidence Act is that oral admissions as to the contents of documents are not relevant, unless and until the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question.
Exceptions to the General Rule Section 22 of Indian Evidence Act
There are two exceptions to the general rule:
-
When the party proposing to prove the oral admission is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of the document. Secondary evidence is evidence of the contents of a document which is given when the original document is not available or cannot be produced. Section 65 of the Evidence Act deals with the rules relating to secondary evidence.
-
When the genuineness of a document produced is in question. If the genuineness of a document is in question, an oral admission as to the contents of the document is admissible, even though the party proposing to prove the admission is not entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of the document.
Rationale for the General Rule Section 22 of Indian Evidence Act
The rationale for the general rule is that oral admissions as to the contents of documents are more liable to error than the original documents themselves. This is because oral admissions are often made hastily and without due consideration, and they may be misunderstood or misremembered. Additionally, oral admissions can be easily fabricated.
Section 22 of Indian Evidence Act Rationale for the Exceptions
The rationale for the exceptions to the general rule is that, in certain cases, it is necessary to allow oral admissions as to the contents of documents to be proved. For example, if the original document is not available or cannot be produced, it would be unfair to deny a party the right to prove the contents of the document simply because he cannot produce the original. Similarly, if the genuineness of a document is in question, it is important to allow oral admissions as to the contents of the document to be proved, in order to assist the court in determining whether the document is genuine or not.
Conclusion Section 22 of Indian Evidence Act
Section 22 of Indian Evidence Act is an important provision of law, which helps to ensure that the evidence presented in court is reliable and accurate. The general rule against the admissibility of oral admissions as to the contents of documents is necessary to protect against the dangers of fabricated or mistaken evidence. However, the exceptions to the general rule allow for the admission of oral admissions in certain cases where it is necessary to do so in order to achieve justice.
Additional Notes on Section 22 of Indian Evidence Act
-
Section 22 of Evidence Act applies to oral admissions as to the contents of both electronic and non-electronic records.
-
The party proposing to prove an oral admission as to the contents of a document must be able to prove that the admission was made by the party against whom it is sought to be used.
-
The oral admission must be relevant to the matters in dispute.
-
The oral admission must be made freely and voluntarily.
-
The oral admission must not be made under duress or compulsion.
-
The oral admission must not be made in the heat of the moment.
-
The oral admission must not be made under a mistake of fact.
Here are some case laws on Section 22 of Indian Evidence Act:
-
Slatterie v. Pooley (1840) M&W 669: This English case established the rule that oral admissions as to the contents of documents are admissible to prove the contents of those documents, even if the originals are not produced.
-
Sheo Parshad v. Jaggar Nath (1884) 10 I.A. 79: This Privy Council case held that the rule in Slatterie v. Pooley should not be followed in India, as it was too dangerous to allow oral admissions as to the contents of documents to be proved without notice to produce and without accounting for the absence of the originals.
-
Landless v. Quesak 8 Ir.L. R 382: This Irish case followed the reasoning in Sheo Parshad v. Jaggar Nath and held that oral admissions as to the contents of documents are not admissible in Ireland unless the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document produced is in question.
-
Phipson on Evidence (15th Ed., para 28.04, 28.14 and 46.11): This legal treatise discusses the rule in Section 22 of the Indian Evidence Act and concludes that the rule is a sound one, as it helps to prevent the admissibility of unreliable evidence.
-
Sarkar on Evidence (15th Ed., 1999 p. 406): This legal treatise also discusses the rule in Section 22 of the Indian Evidence Act and concludes that the rule is necessary to protect against the dangers of fabricated or mistaken evidence.
These cases and legal treatises illustrate the importance of Section 22 of the Indian Evidence Act in ensuring that the evidence presented in court is reliable and accurate.