Section 33: Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein stated. — Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:
Provided — that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.
Explanation — A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.
धारा-33: किसी साक्ष्य में कथित तथ्यों की सम्यता को प्रश्चात्वर्ती कार्यवाही मेंसाबित करने के लिए उस साक्ष्य की सुसंगति – वह साक्ष्य, जो किसी साक्षी ने किसी न्यायिक कार्यवाही में, या किसी साक्षी ने किसी न्यायिक कार्यवाही में, या विधि द्वारा उसे लेने के लिए प्राधिकृत किसी व्यक्ति के समक्ष दिया है, उन तथ्यों की सत्यता को, जो उस साक्ष्य में कथित है, किसी पश्चातवर्ती न्यायिक कार्यवाहि में या उसी न्यायिक कार्यवाही के आगामी प्रक्रम में साबित करने के प्रयोजन के लिये तब सुसंगत है; जबकि वह साक्षी मर गया है या मिल नहीं सकता है, या वह साक्ष्य देने के लिए असमर्थ है या प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा उसे पहुँच के बाहर कर दिया गया है अथवा यदि उसकी उपस्थिति इतने विलम्ब या व्यय के बिना, जितना कि मामले को परिस्थितियों में न्यायालय अयुक्तियुक्त समझता है, अभिप्राप्त नहीं की जा सकती।
प्ररन्तु वह तब जब कि वह कार्यवाही उन्हीं पक्षकारों या उनके हित प्रतिनिधियों के बीच में थी, प्रथम कार्यवाही में प्रतिपक्षी को प्रतिपरीक्षा का अधिकार और अवसर था, विवाद्य प्रश्न ािर्यवाही में सारतः वही थे जो द्वितीय कार्यवाही में हैं।
स्पष्टीकरण– दाण्डिक विचारण या जांच इस धारा के अर्थ के अन्तर्गत अभियोजक और अभियुक्त के बीच कार्यवाही समझी जायेगी।
Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly regarded advocate based in Ahmedabad, known for his expertise in criminal law. As a distinguished lawyer at the Gujarat High Court, he specializes in a wide range of legal matters, making him a sought-after professional in various areas of law. Some of his notable specializations include handling cases related to cheque bounce, property disputes, cybercrime, court marriages, divorces, debt recovery tribunals (DRT), FIR quashing, land revenue disputes, anticipatory bail, PASA (Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act), family law, civil law, and more. Advocate Paresh M Modi is a highly skilled lawyer practicing at the Gujarat High Court Lawyer in Ahmedabad. With his extensive experience and expertise, He has established himself as a renowned advocate in the region. Stay connected with him on social media for updates:
Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn | Instagram | YouTube
Follow Advocate Paresh M Modi, the esteemed lawyer, for valuable insights, legal analysis, and engaging discussions. Stay informed about the law and legal developments through his informative content. In the meantime, check out other Information from Home Page, or call us at Landline No: +91-79-48001468 or Phone & WhatsApp No: +91 99250 02031.
