Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law relating to Evidence

An electronic record is produced in Court from a custody the Court considers proper and is proved to be six years old. It bears an electronic signature purporting to be that of Mr. Rao. What may the Court do under the Act?

The Court may presume that the electronic signature was affixed by Mr. Rao or a person authorised by him. Section 93 permits this for electronic records five years old produced from proper custody. It covers the signature only, not the truth of the contents.

  1. APresume that the signature was affixed by Mr. Rao or a person authorised by himCorrect
  2. BPresume that the record's contents are true in all respects
  3. CPresume that the signature was forged unless Mr. Rao proves otherwise
  4. DRefuse to consider the record as it is older than five years

Explanation

Section 93 applies to electronic records purporting or proved to be five years old, produced from proper custody. The Court may presume that the signature was affixed by the person or someone authorised by him. The presumption concerns the signature, not the truth of the contents, and it is discretionary ('may').

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law relating to Evidence shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law relating to EvidenceFree diagnostic mock

More Law relating to Evidence questions