Sr.

Subject: Indian Evidence Act

No.
1. Case Name Seth Ramdayal Jat vs Laxmi Prasad
2. Citation AIR (2009) 11 SCC 545
3. Judges S.B Sinha J, Mukundakam Sharma
4. Brief Facts Though even after the payment of
aforementioned grant of the loan. The appellant
charges interest and still doesnt release the
respondents security jewelry.
5. Judgement by Appellate Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the
Court appellant had violated the provisions and hence
came out to a decision of penalization.
6. Cases referred Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi and
others. [AIR 1955 SC 566]

In Perumal v. Devarajan and others.[AIR 1974

Madras 14]

Jagdish Tiwary and Ors. [AIR 2005 Patna 51]

7. Judgment and Order The decree of the appellate Court did not find any
merit in facts and circumstances and hence it has
been dismissed.
8. Comment or Observations or The judgement of the lower court thereafter the
Critical Analysis by the prosecution found to be used as evidence.
Researcher Contention 2 of the learned counsel of the
respondent having regards in provision made the
judgement in criminal court was admissible as
evidence alongside made the respondent himself
as witness. And indisputably the judgement in
criminal case was marked as an exhibit. A civil
proceeding can go simultaneously with a criminal
proceeding. No statute restrains them to do so and
decision of criminal case doesnt bind civil court.

Sr. Subject: Indian Evidence Act

No.
1. Case Name Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine vs State (Delhi
Admn.) & Anr.
2. Citation (2009) Cr.Appl 416 [SPL (2005) 5791]
3. Judges S.B Sinha J, Lokeshwar Singh Patna,B.
Sudershan Reddy.
4. Brief Facts Mutation of property was been canceled as due to
the title owner of the same were others and also
the appellant was been accused of the Forgery.
5. Judgement by Appellate The High Court on the basis of the PLA even
Court considering the same quashes the petition and
disables PLA due to incompetency of
reconciliation.
6. Cases referred Sardool Singh & Anr. vs. Smt. Nasib Kaur [1987
(Supp.) SCC 146]

Mt. Daropti vs. Mt. Santi [1929 Lahore 483]

Darbara Singh vs. Karminder Singh & ors. [AIR

1979 Punjab & Haryana 215]

K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police and anr.

[(2002) 8 SCC 87]

Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi

Marwah & Anr. [(2005) 4 SCC 370]

P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari

Babu [AIR 2008 SC 1884]
7. Judgment and Order The will which had been alleged of forgery had
not been sent to handwriting expert which was an
essential to determine the genuineness of the will
and hence did not find any merit in facts and
circumstances and hence it has been dismissed.
8. Comment or Observations or Despite the case has run to both civil and criminal
Critical Analysis by the nature, primacy of this case was given to the
Researcher criminal part in nature and the appellate was
found guilt of trespass and made handover of the
possession. It was seen the learned counsel was
may be correct that 41 of IEA is an exception to
40, 42, 43 providing as to which judgement
would be conclusive proof of what stated in.

Sr. Subject: Indian Evidence Act

No.
1. Case Name Menahem Mesha Menahem Messa vs Moses
Bunin Menahem Messa
2. Citation AIR (1938) 40 Bom LR 571
3. Judges J Beaumont, Kt., B Wadia
4. Brief Facts An alleged will was made on the respondents by
the testator who dies and later the son of the
testator files a suit for the entire share on assets.
5. Judgement by Appellate Court of port said that the deceased left the
Court property in Egypt and at any rate the property was
at his name and the partnership property was not
clear and hence appealed to transfer the case to
Supreme Court of Alexandria
6. Cases referred ------------ No Case Laws Referred ---------------
7. Judgment and Order The appeal has been dismissed due to the counsel
of plaintiff was close of his address and was not
prepared to give up at any cost and distinctly
against the will the conclusions were made
regarding the same.
8. Comment or Observations or If a person dies leaving assets in another country
Critical Analysis by the then the courts of the latter countries have
Researcher jurisdiction to appoint a new representative as of
law of succession. In this case Justice Beaumont
finds out section 41 of IEA is helpless for
respondents due to the limitation of jurisdiction.
The will I this case was a secondary form which
is a gifted on and was a source to find the critical
evidence and said it must in possession of the
owner.

JUDGEMENTS OTHERWISE NOT COVERED IN OTHER SECTIONS

SECTION 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - This is a residuary provision to the Section
41 and 42. The general law is that a judgement of competent court or not obtained by fraud
collision would only be admissible in evidence if it fails within the perview of the above
chapters. In other words if a judgement not inter partes would not admissible unless it is
admissible under some provision of the evidence act.if the judgement is not relevant under the
above chapters it would not be relevant unless the existence of such judgement, order or decree
is a fact in issue or relevant under some other provisions of this act.1

Necessity Of This Chapter

The simple and precise the need of this section arises from the first kind of principle Original
Precedents which the court has never been considered a previous case law and the judge has to
use his or her own discretion in reaching a final judgement using an approach of Reasoning of
Analogy and hence they will find a similar principle nearby to the case they are dealing which
also had the similar principles.2

Admissibility

A judgement in a criminal case is admissible to show what order was made to the dispute were,
what the land in dispute was and who was held entitled to possession.3 In subsequent
proceedings for succession, the judgement of the criminal court is only relevant to show that the
claimant was convicted and sentenced under s. 304 PC.

To have the effect of res judicata, a judgement inter parties alone can be admitted in evidence,
but for other purposes where judgements are sought to be used to show the conduct of the
parties, or show particular instances of the exercise of a right, or admissions made by ancestors,
or how the property was dealt with previously, they may be used under sec. 11 or 13 as
exceptions recognized under this section, as relevant evidence. This is to say their existence
though not their correctness, might be proved. Except where they are judgements in rem or
where they relate to public matters, judgements not inter partes have always held to be not res
judicata, but they cannot be wholly excluded for other purposes in so far as they explain the
nature of possession, or throw light on the motives or conduct of parties or identify property.4

An Admissions made by a party in a previous criminal proceedings has been held to be

admissible in a subsequent civil proceedings.5

1 Legal Classic of Daily Use S.P. Tyagi

2 Precedents in UK legal system.

3 Krishnan v. Md, 21 CWN 93 : 31 IC 789

4 Lakshman v. Amrit, (1900) 24 Bom 591. 598, 599: 2 Bom LR 386.

5 Seth Ramdayal Jat vs Laxmi Prasad AIR (2009) 11 SCC 545

Judgements in Criminal Cases and Civil Natured Cases

Judgements of criminal cases cannot be relied on a single binding of a civil action. Equally the
findings on civil proceeding are not binding on a subsequent prosecution found upon the same or
similar allegations6. The judgement in the criminal court would not be relevant in the claim
petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. The judgement in the claim relevant in the claim petition
would not not be relevant in the criminal case for establishing the guilt of the accused.7 Under the
section 43, evidence Act, the judgement of the criminal court can be used only to establish the
fact that an acquittal has taken place as a fact in issue in the subsequent civil suit. The civil suit
court cannot take into consideration the grounds upon which the acquittal was based. The
judgement of a criminal court in civil proceedings will only have limited application viz. inter
alia, for the purpose as to who was the accused and what was the result of the criminology
proceedings.8

The ruling of the Privy Counsel in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad has been applied by the
supreme court in K.G. Premshanker vs Inspector of police. In this case a civil proceeding suit for
the damages was also filed against the person accused in a criminal proceeding. The suit was
dismissed.
A settlement in civil proceeding for recovery of a loan was held to be not of much
relevance in a subsequent criminal proceeding arising out of the same cause. The court said that a
civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously over the same Cause of Action.
Judgements Of The Trial Court Under Writ Jurisdiction under sections 42,43 and 44.9
Now this point no longer res integra that a decision rendered by the high court in writ
petition between the same parties is binding them. In view of section 42 and 43 of the evidence
Act, 1872 respondents can get rid of that judgement and order only under section 24 by showing
that the court was not competent to render the judgement or pass the order. If there being so
much infirmity then the decision of the high court in the writ jurisdiction would operate as res
judicata and respondents could not wriggle out of it. Further the high court being court of record,
its judgements, ratio and dictum are binding even over subordinate judiciary and also it is
binding in high court as precedent.10

6 Krishnan v. Adaikalam, AIR 1966 M 425.

7 Raja Ram Garg v. Chhanga Singh A 1992 All 28,30

8 Law of Evidence S.C. Sarkar

9 Law of Evidence R&D

10Legal Classic of Daily Use S.P. Tyagi

Relevancy under some other provisions of this Act11
Apart from 40 to 44 there are other words clearly indicate necessity of precedents such as s. 8,
11, 13, 14 and s. 54 (2). Illustrations (d)(e)(f) explain the meaning of the last words of this
section and are examples of judgements relevant other than these chapters.
A judgement not inter partes is admissible in evidence in, quantum valeat if its existence
is a relevant fact.
Conclusion
With respect to the applicability and admissibility of civil judgments in criminal
proceedings, the researcher came to the conclusion that the excellent set up of the Indian
Evidence Act of 1872 sees to proper standards and parameters to be followed concerning the
admissibility of other judgments. Old cases pertaining to the admissibility of criminal
proceedings in civil proceedings, however, are of the strict opinion that such admissibility cannot
be held on account of various factors including the fact that every case has to be decided upon
its own facts as they exist between the parties to it and not by reference to the judgments in other
cases".
The researcher had introduced the concept keeping in mind the standards of proof used in
civil and criminal proceedings, and the a priori thesis was that a criminal proceeding must be
admissible in a civil proceeding when the events form the part of the same transaction and the
utmost priority is given to finding the truth rather than getting lost in a maze civil procedure.
Such a view was held in cases such as Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Laxmi Prasad , and is, according to
the researcher, the correct method of admissibility. With respect to the admissibility of civil
judgments in criminal proceedings, there exists no ambiguity due to the presence of statutory
provisions in the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 that regulate the admissibility of other judgments
but nevertheless make them admissible when they are clearly relevant.

11Law of Evidence R&D