Legal Disputes

Section 18 : Admission by party to proceeding or his agent —

Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions.

By suitor in representative character — Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character. Statements made by—

(1) Party interested in subject-matter — persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested, or

(2) Person from whom interest derived — persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.

धारा 18 -स्वीकृति-कार्यवाही के पक्षकार या उसके अभिकर्ता द्वारा-

वे कथन स्वीकृतियां हैं, जिन्हें कार्यवाही के किसी पक्षकार ने किया हो, या ऐसे किसी पक्षकार के ऐसे किसी अभिकर्ता ने किया हो, जिसे मामले कि परिस्थितियों में न्यायालय उन कथनों को करने के लिए उस पक्षकार द्वारा अभिव्यक्त या विवक्षित रूप से प्रधिकृत किया हुआ मानता है।

प््रतिनिधिक रूप से वादकर्ता द्वारा- वाद के ऐसे पद्वाकारों द्वारा, जो प्रतिनिधिक हैसियत में वाद ला रहे हो, किए गए कथन, जब तक िकवे उस समय न किए गए हो जबकि उनको काने वाला पक्षकार वैसी हैसियत धारण करता था, स्वीकृतियां नहीं है।

(1) विषयवस्तु में हितबद्ध पक्षकार द्वारा– ऐसे व्यक्तियों द्वारा किए गए हैं, जिनका कार्यवाही की विषयवस्तु में कोई साम्प्रत्तिक या धन संबंधी हित है और जो इस प्रकार हितबद्ध व्यक्तियों की हैसियत में वह कथन करते है, अथवा

(2) उस व्यक्ति द्वारा जिससे व्युत्पन्न हुआ हो– ऐस व्यक्तियों द्वारा किए गए है।, जिनसे वाद के पक्षकारों का वाद की विषय-वस्तु में अपना हित व्युत्पन्न हुआ है,यदि वे कथन उन्हें करने वाले व्यक्तियों के हित के चालू रहने के दौरान में किए गए है।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Section 15 : Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional. — When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, 1[or done with a particular knowledge or intention,] the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.—When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, 1[or done with a particular knowledge or intention,] the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.”

Illustrations :

(a) A is accused of burning down his house in order to obtain money for which it is insured. The facts that A lived in several houses successively, each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different insurance office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.

(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive. The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional. The facts that other entries made by A in the same book are false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A, are relevant.

(c) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B a counterfeit rupee. The question is, whether the delivery of the rupee was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B, was not accidental.

धारा 15 :- कार्य आकस्मिक या साशय था इस प्रश्न पर प्रकाश डालने वाले तथ्य – जबकि प्रष्न यह है कि कार्य आकस्मिक या साशय था या किसी विशिष्ट ज्ञान या आशय से किया गया था, तब यह तथ्य कि ऐसा कार्य समरूप घटनाओं की आवली का भाग था जिनमें से हर एक घटनाके साथ वह ािर्य करने वाला व्यक्ति संपृक्त था, सुसंगत है।

दृष्टान्त-

(क) क पर यह अभियोग है कि अपने गृह के बीमे का धन अभिप्राप्त करने के लिए असने उसे जला दिया।ये तथ्य कि क कई गृहों में एक के पश्चात् दूसरे में रहा, जिनमें से हर एक का उसने बीमा कराया, जिनमें से हर एक में आग लगी और जिन अग्निकांडों में से हर एक के उनपरान्त क को किसी भिन्न बीमा-कार्यालय से बीमा-धन मिला, इस नाते सुसंगत है कि उनसे यह दर्शित होता है कि वे अग्निकांड आकस्मिक नहीं थे।

(ख) ख के ऋणियों से धन प्राप्त करने के लिए क नियोजित है। क का यह कर्तव्य है कि बही में अपने द्वारा प्राप्त राशियां दर्शित प्रविष्टियां करे। वह एक प्रविष्टि करता है निससे यह दर्शित होता है कि किसी विशिष्ट अवसर पर उसे वपास्तव में प्राप्त राशि से कम राशि प्राप्त हुई।प्रश्न यह है कि क्या यह मिथ्या प्रविष्टि आकस्मिक थी या साशय।ये तथ्य की उसी बही में क द्वारा की हुई अन्य प्रविष्टियां मिथ्या हैं और हर एक अवस्था में मिथ्या प्रविष्टि क के पक्ष में है, सुसंगत है।

(ग) ख को कपटपूर्वक कूटकृत रुपया परिदान करने का क अभियुक्त है। प््रश्न यह है कि क्या रुपए का परिदान आकस्मिक था।यह तथ्य कि ख को परिदान के तुरन्त पहले या पीछे क ने ग, घ और ड़ को कूटकृत रुपए परिदान किये थे इस नाते सुसंगत है कि उनसे यह दर्शित होता है कि ख को किया गया परिदान आकस्मिक नहीं था।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Section 33: Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated. — Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:

Provided — that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.

Explanation — A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.

धारा-33: किसी साक्ष्य में कथित तथ्यों की सम्यता को प्रश्चात्वर्ती कार्यवाही मेंसाबित करने के लिए उस साक्ष्य की सुसंगति – वह साक्ष्य, जो किसी साक्षी ने किसी न्यायिक कार्यवाही में, या किसी साक्षी ने किसी न्यायिक कार्यवाही में, या विधि द्वारा उसे लेने के लिए प्राधिकृत किसी व्यक्ति के समक्ष दिया है, उन तथ्यों की सत्यता को, जो उस साक्ष्य में कथित है, किसी पश्चातवर्ती न्यायिक कार्यवाहि में या उसी न्यायिक कार्यवाही के आगामी प्रक्रम में साबित करने के प्रयोजन के लिये तब सुसंगत है; जबकि वह साक्षी मर गया है या मिल नहीं सकता है, या वह साक्ष्य देने के लिए असमर्थ है या प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा उसे पहुँच के बाहर कर दिया गया है अथवा यदि उसकी उपस्थिति इतने विलम्ब या व्यय के बिना, जितना कि मामले को परिस्थितियों में न्यायालय अयुक्तियुक्त समझता है, अभिप्राप्त नहीं की जा सकती।

प्ररन्तु वह तब जब कि वह कार्यवाही उन्हीं पक्षकारों या उनके हित प्रतिनिधियों के बीच में थी, प्रथम कार्यवाही में प्रतिपक्षी को प्रतिपरीक्षा का अधिकार और अवसर था, विवाद्य प्रश्न ािर्यवाही में सारतः वही थे जो द्वितीय कार्यवाही में हैं।

स्पष्टीकरण– दाण्डिक विचारण या जांच इस धारा के अर्थ के अन्तर्गत अभियोजक और अभियुक्त के बीच कार्यवाही समझी जायेगी।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.

Section- 6: Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction. — Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Illustrations-

(a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.

(b) A is accused of waging war against the 1[Government of India] by taking part in an armed insurrection in which property is destroyed, troops are attacked, and goals are broken open. The occurrence of these facts is relevant, as forming part of the general transaction, though A may not have been present at all of them.

(c) A sues B for a libel contained in a letter forming part of a correspondence. Letters between the parties relating to the subject out of which the libel arose, and forming part of the correspondence in which it is contained, are relevant facts, though they do not contain the libel itself.

(d) The question is, whether certain goods ordered from B were delivered to A. The goods were delivered to several intermediate persons successively. Each delivery is a relevant fact.

धारा 6: एक ही संव्यवहार के भाग होने वाले तथ्यों की सुसंगति – जो तथ्य विवाद्य न होते हुए भी किसी विवाद्यक तथ्य उस प्रकार संसक्त हैं िकवे एक ही संव्यवहार के भाग हैं, वे तथ्य सुसंगात हैं चाहे वे उसी समय और स्थान पर या विभिन्न समयों और स्थानों पर घटित हुए हों।

दृष्टान्त-

(क) ख को पीट कर उसकी हत्या करने का क अभियुक्त हैं। क या ख या पास खड़े लोगों द्वारा जो कुछ भी पिठाई के समय या उससे इतने अल्पकाल पूर्व या पश्चात् कहा या किया गया थ िकवह उसी संव्यवहार का भाग बन गया है, वह सुसंगत तथ्य है।

(ख) क एक सशस्त्र विप्लव में भग लेकर, जिसमें सम्पत्ति नष्ट की जाती है, फौजों पर आक्रमण किया जाता है और जेलें जोड़कर खोली जाती है। भारत सरकार के विरुद्ध युद्ध करने का अभियुक्त हैं। इनत थ्यों का घटित होना साधारण संव्यवहार का भाग होने के नाते सुसंगत है चाहे स उन सभी में उपस्थित न रहा हो।

(ग) क एक प्रश्न में, जो एक पत्र व्यवहार का भाग है, अन्पर्विष्ट अपमान-लेख के लिय ख पर वाद लाता हैं जिस विषय में अपमान-लेख उद्भूत हुआ है, उससे सम्बन्ध रखने वाले पक्षकारों के बीच जितनी चिट्ठियाँ उस पत्र-व्यवहार का भाग हैं हजसमें वह अन्तविष्ट है वे सुसंगत तथ्य है, चाहे उनमें वह अपमान-लेख स्वयं अन्तर्विष्ट न हो।

(घ) प्रश्न यह है कि ख से आदिष्ट अमुक माल क को परिदत्त किया गया था। वह माल, अनुक्रमशः कई मध्यवर्ती व्यक्तियों को परिदत्त किया गया था। हर एक परिदान सुसंगत तथ्य है।

Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:

Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube

Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.