Section 326 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, (BSA), 2023
Section 326 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), focusing on its purpose, implications, and practical application:
Section 326: Oral Admission as to Contents of Documents — When Irrelevant
What does the section say?
This section essentially states that oral admissions about the contents of a document are not admissible as evidence unless:
The party is entitled to produce secondary evidence of the document’s contents under the rules provided in the Act, or
The authenticity of the document itself is in question, requiring proof to establish whether the document is genuine or forged.
Why is this section important?
Primary vs. Secondary Evidence:
The law prefers primary evidence — that is, the original document itself — to prove what the document contains.
If the original document is unavailable, a party may be entitled to produce secondary evidence (such as copies, oral accounts, or other substitutes) only under certain conditions.
Section 326 ensures that one cannot just orally claim what a document says to bypass the need to produce the document or acceptable secondary evidence.
Avoiding False or Misleading Claims:
Without this provision, a party could potentially distort or misrepresent what a document says by merely making an oral statement.
The section safeguards against such potential misuse, emphasizing the integrity and reliability of documentary evidence.
Ensuring Proper Proof of Documents:
It helps in maintaining a structured procedure for proving documents in court.
The party relying on the contents of a document must either produce the original or valid secondary evidence, not merely rely on oral admissions.
How does this work in practice?
Scenario 1:
Suppose Party A claims that Party B agreed to certain terms in a written contract. Party A tries to prove the terms by simply saying, “Party B orally admitted these terms.” Under Section 326, such oral admission about the document’s contents is not admissible. Party A must produce the contract or prove why they can only provide secondary evidence (e.g., the original contract is lost or destroyed).
Scenario 2:
If Party A argues that a document presented by Party B is forged or altered, then the authenticity of the document is in question. In this case, oral admissions related to proving the genuineness or forgery may be relevant and admissible to settle the authenticity issue.
Connection with other sections:
Section 325 and 327 of the BSA detail what constitutes primary and secondary evidence.
Section 326 ensures oral admissions about documents don’t replace these rules.
This aligns with the principle that the best evidence rule applies: the original document is preferred, and oral testimony is a last resort.
Summary:
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Oral admissions on document | Generally irrelevant as evidence |
| Exception 1 | When entitled to give secondary evidence |
| Exception 2 | When authenticity of the document is in question |
| Purpose | Prevent false claims and ensure reliable proof |
| Practical effect | Oral claims about document content need backing by actual or secondary evidence |
RELATED Blog
0 comments