Under Sections 142 and 146 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, during examination-in-chief, the prosecutor asks a witness: "You observed the accused carrying a knife into the building at 8:00 PM, isn't that correct?" The defence counsel immediately objects, arguing this is a leading question. The prosecutor responds that the fact is "introductory" or "undisputed." Which of the following correctly applies Sections 142 and 146 to determine whether the leading question should be permitted?

Explanation: Section 146 of the BSA, 2023 (corresponding to Sections 141-143 IEA) provides the framework for leading questions: Section 146(1) defines a leading question as "any question that suggests the answer which the person putting the question wishes or does not wish to receive." Section 146(2) establishes the general prohibition: "Leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court." Section 146(3) specifies the exceptions: " Leading questions may, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, with the permission of the Court, in the following cases:— (a) matters which are introductory or undisputed or which have already been sufficiently proved; (b) on matters already sufficiently proved by the evidence of another witness or a previous witness." In the question's scenario: The prosecutor's question "You observed the accused carrying a knife into the building at 8:00 PM, isn't that correct?" is textbook leading—it suggests a specific answer. The defence counsel's objection is valid. However, the prosecutor may potentially establish an exception under Section 146(3)(a) if the Court determines that: (i) the fact is merely introductory (preliminary context, not central); (ii) the fact is undisputed (defence agrees the accused entered at 8:00 PM); or (iii) the fact has already been sufficiently proved (another witness testified to this fact). The burden on the prosecutor is to persuade the Court that one exception applies. Mere assertion that a fact is introductory is insufficient—the Court exercises discretion and may deny permission if the fact is genuinely disputed or central to the charge (whether the accused carried a knife). The Supreme Court in Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012) emphasized that even with exceptions, the Court's discretion is paramount and must be exercised judicially. Thus, option (B) correctly applies Sections 142 and 146's conditional permissibility framework.