Skip to content

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

In a bank fraud case, the defence says that a produced document, purporting to be a Magistrate-signed record of a witness's deposition, was not in fact taken in the manner stated. The document states that the witness gave evidence voluntarily and that it was read over to him. Which analysis is correct under Section 79?

The Court shall presume the Magistrate's statements about how the deposition was taken, such as voluntariness and reading over, are true. A bare defence assertion does not displace this. The presumption does not make the witness's evidence true, and no personal confirmation by the Magistrate is needed.

  1. AThe Court shall presume the Magistrate's statements about the circumstances of taking are true, and the presumption is not displaced merely by the defence's assertionCorrect
  2. BThe Court cannot presume the circumstances statements true, because Section 79 covers only genuineness
  3. CThe Court must presume the witness's evidence is factually true, so the defence cannot argue otherwise
  4. DThe presumption applies only after the Magistrate personally confirms the statements in Court

Explanation

Limb (ii) of Section 79 makes the Court presume that statements about the circumstances of taking, purporting to be made by the signing person, are true. A bare assertion by the defence does not remove this. The presumption does not make the witness's evidence true, and it does not require the Magistrate to appear.

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