Section 136 of Evidence Act "Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence"
When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact,
the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the evidence
in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be
relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he
thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not
otherwise.
If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence
is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such
last-mentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given
of the fact first mentioned, unless the party undertakes to
give proof of such fact, and the Court is satisfied with
such undertaking.
If the relevancy of one
alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being
first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either
permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the
second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given
of the second fact before evidence is given of the first
fact.
Illustrations
(a) It is proposed to prove a statement about a relevant
fact by a person alleged to be dead, which statement is
relevant under section 32.
The fact that the person is dead must be proved by the
person proposing to prove the statement, before evidence is
given of the statement.
(b) It is proposed to prove, by a copy, the contents of a
document said to be lost.
The fact that the original is lost must be proved by the
person proposing to produce the copy, before the copy is
produced.
(c) A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to
have been stolen.
It is to prove that he denied the possession of the
property.
The relevancy of the denial depends on the identity of the
property. The Court may, in its discretion, either require
the property to be identified before the denial of the
possession is proved, or permit the denial of the possession
to be proved before the property is identified.
(d) It is proposed to prove a fact (A) which is said to have
been the cause or effect of a fact in issue. There are
several intermediate facts (B, C and D) which must be shown
to exist before the fact (A) can be regarded as the cause or
effect of the fact in issue. The Court may either permit A
to be proved before B, C or D is proved, or may require
proof of B, C and D before permitting proof of A.
Section 137 of Evidence Act "Examination in chief"
The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination in-chief.
Cross-examination- The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.
Re-examination- The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him, shall be called his re-examination.
Section 138 of Evidence Act "Order of examinations"
Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the
adverse party so desires) cross -examined, then (if the
party calling him so desires) re-examined.
The examination and cross - examination must relate to
relevant facts but the cross -examination need not be
confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his
examination -in-Chief.
Direction of re-examination - The re-examination shall be
directed to the explanation of matters referred to in
cross-examination ; and , if new matter is, by permission of
the Court, introduced in-re-examination, the adverse party
may further cross-examine upon that matter.