Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter X: Of the Examination of Witnesses
Section 165: Judge’s power to put questions or order production
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
To discover or prove relevant facts, a Judge can ask any witness or party any question, in any form, at any time, about any fact, and order any document or thing to be produced. The parties cannot object, or cross-examine on the answers without the court's leave.
- The judgment must still be based on relevant facts that are duly proved.
- The Judge cannot compel answers or documents that are privileged under sections 121 to 131, ask questions that would be improper under section 148 or section 149, or dispense with primary evidence of a document except where allowed.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question:
Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Act to be relevant, and duly proved:
Provided also that this section shall not authorize any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question, or to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under sections 121 to 131, both inclusive, if the question were asked or the document were called for by the adverse party; nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other person to ask under section 148 or 149; nor shall he dispense with primary evidence of any document, except in the cases hereinbefore excepted.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 165
-
Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu
Trial Court found appellant guilty for the charges framed u/ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC and s.8 r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) of the POCSO Act. An appeal against the said conviction was dismissed by the…
-
Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana.
Conviction of the appellant u/s.302, IPC based on the statement/ dying declaration (Exh. P-34) of the deceased, if ought to be set aside.
-
Shubhkaran Singh v. Abhayraj Singh & Ors.
Whether the petition filed by the petitioner herein u/Or.18 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rightly rejected by the High Court.
-
Chunni Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the accused at the time of commission of crime was incapable of making conscious and informed decision or was suffering from certain mental incapacity or unsoundness of mind; Whether a benefit of doubt may be…
-
K.P. Tamilmaran v. The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court was justified in upholding the conviction and sentence of A-15 under Sections 217, 218, Penal Code, 1860 and ss.3(2)(i), 4, SC/ST Act, 1989 and modifying the conviction and sentence of A-14, while…
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh
Does the Evidence Act, 1872 prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent witness; Does the Evidence Act treat evidence of a child on the same footing as any other witness;…
-
Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for rape and murder of the deceased and imposition of death sentence.
-
Gaurav Maini v. The State of Haryana
Courts below, if justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B IPC.
-
Child in Conflict With Law Through His Mother v. The State of Karnataka and Another
(i) Whether the period provided for completion of preliminary assessment u/s. 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is mandatory or directory; (ii) Whether the words ‘Children’s…
-
Anees v. The State Govt. of NCT
Murder of appellant-accused’s wife in their house in which the appellant, deceased and their 5 year old daughter lived. s.106, Evidence Act, 1872 was invoked and the appellant was convicted u/s.302, IPC for the murder.…
-
Shailesh Kumar v. State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand)
What is the goal of investigation and what is the role of investigating officer; Are s.172 CrPC and ss. 145 & 161 of the Evidence Act to be read in consonance with each other; Can a General Diary entry precede the…
-
State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida
The High Court rejected the applications filed by the prosecution u/s. 311 of the Cr.P.C., seeking recall of PW-189 and to permit the prosecution to produce the report and the certificate u/s. 65B of the Evidence Act,…
- Union of India and Others v. Dilip Paul
- Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma
-
Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar
Whether the High Court erred in confirming the conviction and death sentence passed by trial court against appellant-accused for offences punishable u/ss.302, 376, IPC and s.4, POCSO Act, 2012, despite serious lapses in…
- Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Haryana
- Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of
- Rahul v. State of Delhi Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.
- Varsha Garg v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
- Krishna Lal Chawla & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
- Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.
- Rekha Murarka v. The State of West Bengal and Anr.
- State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar & Others Etc. Etc.
- Pooja Pal v. Union of India and Ors.
- Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
- Sister Mina Lalita Baruwa v. State of Orissa and Others
- Markio Tado v. Takam Sorang & Ors.
- Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors.
- Vikas Kumar Roorkewal v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors,
- Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- M/S. Kapil Corepacks Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Shri Harbans Lal (Since Deceased) Through Lrs.
- Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- M/S. Mandvi Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. Nimesh B. Thakore
- Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
- Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of M.P. and Ors.
- U.T. of Dadra & Haveli and Anr. v. Patel Sinh Mohansinh Chauhan
- Standard Chartered Bank v. Andhra Bank Financial Services Ltd. & Ors
- Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
- Manish Dixit and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
- Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
- Rajendra Prasad v. The Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer Incharge, Delhi
- In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate v. ----
- State of Raiasthan v. Ani @ Hanif and Ors.
- In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey...Contemner v. .
- Mohan Lal Shamlal Soni v. Union of India and Another
- Ram Chander v. State of Haryana
- Balkishan A. Devidayal Etc. v. State of Maharashtra Etc.
- State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram
- Pratap Singh v. Rajinder Singh & Anr.
- Raghunandan v. State of U.P.
- Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur v. Ratilal Motilal Patel