Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter V: Of Documentary Evidence · Presumptions as to documents
Section 79: Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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
The court must presume genuine any certificate or certified copy that the law makes admissible as evidence and that is certified by a Central or State Government officer, if it is substantially in the legal form. It must also presume the signing officer held the official character claimed.
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 Court shall presume [to be genuine] every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by Law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact, and which purports to be duly certified by any officer [of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer [in the State of Jammu and Kashmir] who is duly authorised thereto by the Central Government]:
Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf. The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper.
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 79
-
Manik & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra
Appellants-convicts are members of the police force and the allegation against them is misuse and abuse of their powers, in resorting to custodial torture of victim-S and tampering with evidence.
-
S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah & Ors.
1. Whether the High Court has, in the impugned judgment, exercised the jurisdiction of review in accordance with the parameters set out in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the High Court has, in the…
-
Appaiya v. Andimuthu @ Thangapandi & Ors .
Whether the High Court was correct in holding that owing to the non-production of any document by appellant evincing as to how the sons’ of the seller obtained the suit property in a partition Exhibit A1-registered sale…
- M/s N. N. GLOBAL MERCANTILE PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/s
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)
- Manoj @ Monu @ Vishal Chaudhary v. State of Haryana & Anr
- Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra&Anr.
- Cidco v. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar
- Bhinka and Others v. Charan Singh