About Section 1:

The Section my project would deal with is, Section 1 which states that this section is applicable
throughout india and in all Judicial proceedings except in some court martial cases, before
arbitrators & before affidavits

About Judicial Proceedings:

Judicial Proceedings are something which establishes some jural relationship between parties.

What the main project is about:

My Main Project is about finding that, when a police official is charged guilty in departmental
enquiry then whether rule of evidence would be applicable in determining the guilt or not? And
similarly if a worker is dismissed from the factory, then can the worker use documentary evidence
like ID card to prove his wrongful dismissal and would that be admissible in the court of law?
Likewise, Can Income Tax Tribunal convict a Person for Tax Laundering on the basis of evidentiary
documents like Mismatch in Balance Sheet.

Explaining Research Issues:

So, After Reading Section 1, the first prime Facie Grey Area which I could find is, in the second part
of Section 1, which is about the Judicial Jurisdiction, which states that it is applicable in all judicial
Proceeding I or before any court, then does this means it is really applicable in all judicial
proceedings and before all courts without any exceptions? This my first research issue.

Another research issues I thought of adding was, analysing the statement in section 1 which says
that, evidence act is not applicable before arbitrators, so I wanted to find the circumstances in
which evidence act is applicable before arbitrators

Explaining Rqs

My rqs under this issue is finding whether evidence act is applicable before income tax tribunals or
not, if it applies then under what circumstances is this really applicable

Similarly, also finding whether IEA is applicable before, labour courts or not?

Then, is evidence act also applicable before departmental proceedings or not?

Link Rqs with Re.iss.

My main area of focus is to find whether, this act is applicable before these courts/tribunals and if
they are, then does that means are these courts/ tribunals strictly bound by evidence act. Then, it
is also to find the rule of natural justice & its importance in applying this before different income
tax tribunals/labour courts/departmental proceedings.

My another research issue is analyzing the similarity between application of evidence act in
normal court proceedings vis-à-vis evidence act application in court martial cases. For this I have
gone through Sewa Ram Nagial vs. UOI, c.d fields and some of other secondary resource and frow
which I could find is, that some of the sections like 133 of army acts, 1950 & s.132 of air force act,
1950 makes the provisions of evidence act applicable to proceedings before the court martial,
unless there is any provisions inconsistent with the army act. So, basically I want analyze all the
provisions of evidence act applicable before court-martial cases. And also comparimg it with other
common law countries with respect to this.
What are the subject to provisions under which the evidence act is applicable in court martial cases
under army act

Explain sub-themes

Read gist of the cases Nd make summary

Disciplinary Proceedings:

In this I am trying to figure out whether evidence act is applicable in departmental enquiry or not.
For this I referred to a case law namely K.L Shinde vs. State of Mysore, where the police constable
was dismissed from the service on pretext of being accused in illict liquior smuggling. In this case the
constable was fired without being held guilty in the departmental enquiry. Later on, the appellant
appealed to this court. S.C in this case referred to the case of State of Mysore vs. Shivabassapa and
stated that “Domestic tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and therefore, they
are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by
strict rules of evidence”

I also referred to another similar case namely: A.V Krishnamurthy v. Govt. Of T.N, where the madras
high court has held that strict and technical rules of Indian evidence act does not apply in
departmental proceedings.

Cit

Since the matter was related to acquisition of 4015 shares of the Company which was was not joint
and there was no other evidence that the members of the Kedia family were acting in concert,

The High Court was apparently of the view that the members of the Kedia family were in a position
to control the affairs of the Company, but there was no evidence of any overt act or concert
between them.

 Income tax authorities are strictly not bound by the rules of evidence, though they can use it
to determine. This view had also been laid down in the case of “Commissioner of Income-tax
v. East Coast AIR 1967 SC 768”.

Leonard Biermans

workers' claim for gratuity was rejected,

Raghu Barukrar

refusing to allow him to work and had thus wrongfully dismissed him without the permission of the
said Tribunal, THE Company's case before the Tribunal was that no application had been made to the
Manager on the 22nd June 1953 or at all and as the appellant was absent from his work without
leave, his employment had automatically terminated under the Standing Order governing such
employment.
system and to who suggested that the distinction is rather between a basic part o be called
"natural"; and its superstructure (though it may b far from being a "natural" concept)16 or it is
justice that is s as distinct from justice that is complex, sophisticated and say that it represents the
basic irreducible procedural standar istrators are required to comply. Or perhaps the "roman could
with advantage be dropped

Comparing the applicability of evidence act with common law countries

 Court Martial cases

“Fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of
judgement, vitiate the conclusion reached, such a finding even of a domestic tribunal cannot be held
to be good. The simple point in all these is whether there was some evidence or there was no
evidence, not in the sense of the technical rules governing court proceedings, but in a fair common
sense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Sufficiency of evidence in proof
of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny by court while absence of any evidence in
support of the finding is an error of law apparent on the record and the Court can interfere with the
finding”

Do Labour Courts/ Tribunal a Court or merely a quasi-juduicial body?

Courts is defined under section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. The court is defined as some body
which includes all judges, magistrates and all other person who is legally authorised to take
evidence. but this does not include arbitrators. 1

Quasi-judicial body: A quasi-judicial body is a non-judicial body which need not always be an
institution that resembles a court of law. An entity of government other than a court or legislature
that impacts the rights of private parties through decision-making or rule-making is known as a
quasi-judicial authority. It is an organisation, such as an arbitration panel or tribunal board, which
may be a public administrative body, as well as a contract- or private law institution, and which has
been given authority and conduct that are similar to those of a court or judge. 2

Labour court: this court is a quasi-judicial body as has been held in the case of

Income tax tribunal

Departmental E

Arbitration Proceedings: It is neither a court nor a quasi judicicial

Legal Glossary (1988).

1
Section 3
2
Drishti/wikipedia