Central Act · India · Part IV · Chapter X — Of Examination of Witnesses

Section 167 BSA Using, as evidence, of document production of which was refused on notice

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 · Edition: Original enacted Gazette, 25 December 2023; supplied UP Police IEA comparison (printed pages 9–25)

When a party refuses to produce a document which he has had notice to produce, he cannot afterwards use the document as evidence without the consent of the other party or the order of the Court.

Illustration. A sues B on an agreement and gives B notice to produce it. At the trial, A calls for the document and B refuses to produce it. A gives secondary evidence of its contents. B seeks to produce the document itself to contradict the secondary evidence given by A, or in order to show that the agreement is not stamped. He cannot do so.

Corresponding provisions — source comparison

Reference in this text	Correspondence / source caption
167. Using, as evidence, of document production of which was refused on notice.	164. Using, as evidence, of document production of which was refused on notice. Source ↗

Source document ↗

Judgments on Section 167

APR 20192TUE

LOK 2019 (4) SC 28 · Supreme Court of India

National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali

Equivalent citations: 2019 INSC 456 : AIR 2019 SC 1734 : 2019 (2) Crimes 63 : 2019 CriLJ 2609 : JT 2019 (4) SC 51 : 2019 KLT (Online) 3012 : 2019 (5) Scale 774 : (2019) 5 SCC 1 : 2019 KHC 6384

SubjectBail, Criminal Law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

JudgesJustice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Ajay Rastogi

ActsUnlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Section 43D(5), (6) and (7); Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40); National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Section 21); Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 120B, 121, 121A and 124A); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Sections 161, 164 and 173); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 34)

The respondent, a Kashmiri businessman named as Accused No. 10 in an NIA case of terror funding and conspiracy to wage war, was refused bail by the Designated Court. The charges were under Sections 120B, 121, 121A and 124A IPC and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the UAPA. The High Court granted bail after examining the prosecution material in detail. It treated the central document, a loose “green sheet” recording foreign receipts and disbursements (D-132(a)), as inadmissible, discarded Section 161 statements, and declined to consider the Section 164 statements of protected witnesses produced in a sealed cover. The NIA appealed.