Question
The case of Kashmira Singh
V. State of
M.P. Is related to
Solution
It was held in this case that The confession of an accused person against a co-accused is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term. It does not come within the meaning of evidence contained in sec. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act inasmuch as it is not required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the accused and cannot be tested by cross-examination.
More Banking Related Laws Questions
- In which situation can a court order the attachment of the property of a judgment debtor?
- Under the RTI Act, decisions of the Information Commission are what in nature?
- As per the provisions of the IRDA Act with respect to the tenure of office of the chairperson and other persons, no person shall hold office as a Chairpers...
- Which of the following country is not included in BRICS ?
- Under the RTI Act, the appropriate government must take steps under Section 26 to promote what?
- Which of the following is the objective of the IRDA Act?
- According to the Motor Vehicle Act a person as directed under the Claims Tribunal Award is required to pay the amount of compensation in?
- Which of the following is not a principle of natural justice recognized by administrative law?
- For an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) under Section 18 of SARFAESI, the borrower is required to make a pre-deposit. The Appellate Tribunal has the...
- Under the RTI Act, the disclosure of personal information that has no relationship to any public activity may be exempt unless what?
