Skip to content

CS Professional · Internal and Forensic Audit · Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law

An internal auditor's report notes a Court document that purports to be a record of a witness's deposition but carries no signature of any Judge, Magistrate or authorised officer. In relation to Section 79, which conclusion is correct?

The Section 79 presumption is not triggered. It operates only where the document purports to be signed by a Judge, Magistrate or authorised officer. An unsigned deposition record fails this condition, so its genuineness and due taking must be proved by other means.

  1. AThe Section 79 presumption is not triggered, as the document does not purport to be signed by the Judge, Magistrate or authorised officerCorrect
  2. BThe presumption applies in full because it is a record of evidence
  3. CThe presumption applies only as to genuineness
  4. DThe Court must presume the evidence was duly taken but not that it is genuine

Explanation

Section 79 applies to a document that purports to be signed by a Judge, Magistrate or authorised officer. Without that purported signature, the conditions are not met and the presumptions do not arise. The other options assume a partial or full presumption that the section does not provide.

Did you get it right without looking?

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

Practise Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence LawFree diagnostic mock

More Forensic Audit and Indian Evidence Law questions