Skip to content

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

In a fraud case, counsel argues that because a deposition record signed by a Magistrate is produced, the Court must presume its contents are true. A forensic auditor advising the company secretary distinguishes the Section 79 presumptions from this argument. Which analysis is correct?

Section 79 presumes the record is genuine, the signer's statements about the circumstances of taking are true, and the evidence was duly taken. It does not presume that the witness's testimony is true, so counsel's argument overstates the provision.

  1. ASection 79 presumes genuineness, truth of the signer's statements about circumstances of taking, and due taking; it does not itself make the witness's testimony trueCorrect
  2. BSection 79 presumes the witness's testimony is true because the Magistrate signed it
  3. CSection 79 presumes only that the document was stamped and executed as required by law
  4. DSection 79 presumes the document is primary evidence of the underlying transaction

Explanation

The three presumptions concern genuineness, the signer's statements on circumstances of taking, and due taking of the evidence. Truth of the testimony itself is not presumed. Presumption of attestation, stamping and execution belongs to the section on documents called for and not produced, not Section 79.

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