Skip to content

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

In a fraud probe, Rakesh Agarwal is the sole party sued on a guarantee deed required by law to be attested. In court Rakesh admits that he executed the deed. Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, what is the effect of this admission as against him?

The admission is sufficient proof of execution as against Rakesh. Section 69 says a party's admission of having executed an attested document suffices against him, even where the law requires attestation, so calling an attesting witness is not needed against him.

  1. AIt is insufficient; an attesting witness must still be called
  2. BIt is sufficient proof of execution as against himCorrect
  3. CIt makes the deed void for want of attestation
  4. DIt only shifts the burden to the attesting witness

Explanation

Section 69 provides that a party's admission of execution of an attested document by himself is sufficient proof of execution as against him, even if the document is required by law to be attested. So Section 67's witness requirement does not need to be met against him. The first option ignores this.

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