LAW OF EVIDENCE zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUT 5.zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA Rangarajan* Revised by Versha Vabini** Despite such rules of evidence as were prevalent in Hindu 1 and Muslim India, 2 in the absence of any codified enactment on the subject, the courts established by royal charter in the presidency towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras began to follow English rules of evidence; those rules were contained in the common law and statute law as prevailed in England prior to 1726. 3 But outside the presidency there were no fixed rules of evidence; the position was really anomalous because neither the English rules nor the indigenous (Hindu or Muslim) rules applied. 4 Act X of 1835 of the Governor General in Council applied to all courts in British India 5 and dealt with evidence strictly so called. A series of Acts were passed by the Indian legislature introducing some reforms in the law of evidence. Even Act Π of 1855 was not a complete was not a complete body of rules though it had made many valuable provisions and had made those rules applicable to the entire British India. English rules of evidence were still not the law in the mofitssil; but judges and magistrates in the mofussil were not debarred from following them when they were seen to be the most equitable. There were scattered rules of evidence, however, based upon the practice of the Muslim courts which continued to govern the administration of justice even after the beginning or British Rule in India. Section 58 of Act II of 1855 expressly laid down that nothing in that Act should be so construed as to render admissible in any court any evidence which, but for the passing of that Act, would have been admissible in such courts. But in practice, judges quoted English rules of evidence. 6 * Formerly Chairman, Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi; Formerly Judge, Delhi High Court. ** Asst. Research Professor, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi. 1. For a full discussion see Sir S Varadachariar, Hindu Judicial System, 1946. 2. Sir Abdul Rahim, Muslim Jurisprudence; Waned Hussain, Administration of Justice during the Muslim Rule in India and M. B. Ahmed, Administration of Justice in Medieval India. 3. For a discussion of the difficulties in applying English rules of evidence see Unide v. Pemmasamy 7 M.I.A. 128 at 137. 4. R. v. Khatrulla 6 W. R. (Cr.) 21 and R. v. Ramaswami 6 Bombay H. C. R. 47. 5. Whitely Strokes, Anglo-Indian Code, 2 vols. 6. For an illustration of this aspect see R. v. Gopal 3 I.L.R. Madras 271 per Turner, C. J., at page 282. "Now if we examine the Indian Act 11 of 1855 it will be seen to have had for its object the improvement of the Law of Evidence, and there is not to be