an entry has been made in A's account-book, charging A with the sum said to have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement of his employment. This being a fact observed by B in the course of his employment, showing that a fraud has been committed since the commencement of the proceedings, it is not protected from disclosure 1. applied to 127. The provisions of section 126 shall apply to inter- Sec. 126 preters2, and the clerks or servants of barristers, pleaders, per attorneys, and vakíls. preters not waived by volun evidence. 128. If any party to a suit gives evidence therein at his Privilege own instance or otherwise, he shall not be deemed to have consented thereby to such disclosure as is mentioned in section teering 126; and if any party to a suit or proceeding calls any such barrister, pleader, attorney, or vakíl as a witness 3, he shall be deemed to have consented to such disclosure only if he questions such barrister, attorney, or vakíl on matters which, but for such question, he would not be at liberty to disclose. dential commu 129. No one shall be compelled to disclose to the Court any Conficonfidential communication which has taken place between him and his legal professional adviser, unless he offers him- nications with legal self as a witness, in which case he may be compelled to disclose advisers. any such communications as may appear to the Court necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence which he has given, but no others. 130. No witness who is not a party to a suit5 shall be Production 1 Brown v. Foster, 1 H. & N. 736. 2 This probably means interpreters between barristers, etc. and their clients. They are in England within the privilege (Tayl. § 920); and in India, where barristers and attorneys often cannot speak the language of their clients, such interpreters should certainly be prevented from disclosing professional confidence. Medical men and clergymen are not privileged. Officers of a corporation through whom the corporation makes statements are not privileged as such, Mayor of Swansea v. Quirk, 5 C. P. D. 106. client is interrogated, and whether he 5 i. e. a party to the suit in which of title deeds of Documents which another possessor could refuse to produce. Criminating answers. Proviso. compelled to produce his title-deeds to any property, or any document in virtue of which he holds any property as pledgee or mortgagee, or any document the production of which might tend to criminate him, unless he has agreed in writing to produce them with the person seeking the production of such deeds or some person through whom he claims 1. 131. No one shall be compelled 2 to produce documents in his possession3, which any other person would be entitled to refuse to produce if they were in his possession, unless such last mentioned person consents to their production. 132. A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness, or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind 5 : Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer. 8 are parties the Evidence Act is See Act X of 1855, sec. 9, as 2 But they may be allowed. where the documents are required for the purpose of identification. in the opinion of the judge? 3 Mad. H.C.Appx. xxix-xxx. The section fails to provide that a witness may be compelled to answer relevant questions, the answers to which will subject him to a civil suit or pecuniary liability. See in England, 46 Geo. III. c. 37. The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, secs. 161 and 175 (supra, pp. 118, 125), and those of Ben. Reg. VII of 1822, sec. 19, cl. (1), are unaffected by this section. i.e. answers to a relevant question. If voluntarily, or being compelled by the Court, he answers an irrelevant question, and the answer criminates him, he is not protected. 133. An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice1. 134. No particular number of witnesses shall in any case Number of be required for the proof of any fact 2. witnesses. CHAPTER X. OF THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. 135. THE order in which witnesses are produced and Order of production examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the and examitime being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively 3, nation of and in the absence of any such law, by the discretion of the Court. witnesses. decide as 136. When either party proposes to give evidence of any Judge to fact, the Judge may ask the party proposing to give the to admissievidence in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be bility of relevant; and the Judge shall admit the evidence if he thinks that the fact, if proved, would be relevant, and not otherwise. 1 The jury in cases tried by jury, and the Court in cases tried by assessors, may no doubt presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated (sec. 114, ill. b); but before acting on the presumption the Court or jury is required by sec. 114 and the sequel to the illustrations to consider certain facts with the view to ascertain the possibility of the story told. The rule in sec. 133 is thus brought to coincide with the English rule that, though the tainted evidence of an accomplice should be carefully scanned and received with caution, and may be treated as unworthy of credit, yet, if the jury in the one case, or the Court in the other, credits the evidence, a conviction proceeding upon it is not illegal, 1 Mad. 395, per Morgan C.J. And see 9 All. 528, per Edge C.J. As to the desira- 2 The uncorroborated evidence of a son. * See the Civil Procedure Code, secs. 179, 180; and the Criminal Procedure Code, secs. 286, 287, 289, 290. evidence. Examination-in chief. Cross examination. If the fact proposed to be proved is one of which evidence is admissible only upon proof of some other fact, such lastmentioned fact must be proved before evidence is given of the fact first mentioned, unless the party undertakes to give proof of such fact and the Court is satisfied with such undertaking. If the relevancy of one alleged fact depends upon another alleged fact being first proved, the Judge may, in his discretion, either permit evidence of the first fact to be given before the second fact is proved, or require evidence to be given of the second fact before evidence is given of the first fact. Illustrations. (a) It is proposed to prove a statement about a relevant fact by a person alleged to be dead, which statement is relevant under section 32. The fact that the person is dead must be proved by the person proposing to prove the statement, before evidence is given of the statement. (b) It is proposed to prove, by a copy, the contents of a docu ment said to be lost. The fact that the original is lost must be proved by the person proposing to produce the copy, before the copy is produced. (c) A is accused of receiving stolen property knowing it to have been stolen. It is proposed to prove that he denied the possession of the property. The relevancy of the denial depends on the identity of the property. The Court may, in its discretion, either require the property to be identified before the denial of the possession is proved, or permit the denial of the possession to be proved before the property is identified. (d) It is proposed to prove a fact (4) which is said to have been the cause or effect of a fact in issue. There are several intermediate facts (B, C and D) which must be shown to exist before the fact (4) can be regarded as the cause or effect of the fact in issue. The Court may either permit A to be proved before B, C or D is proved, or may require proof of B, C and D before permitting proof of A. 137. The examination of a witness by the party who calls him1 shall be called his examination-in-chief. The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination 2. 1 at any stage of the case. 2 As to the object and value of cross-examination, see 6 Suth. Civ. R. 182, per Norman J. The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross- Re-examiexamination by the party who called him, shall be called his nation. re-examination 1. examina 138. Witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the Order of adverse party so desires) cross-examined 2, then (if the party tions. calling him so desires) re-examined. 3 The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but the cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examinationin-chief 5. of re-ex The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of Direction matters referred to in cross-examination; and if new matter amination. is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter 6. amination of person 139. A person summoned to produce a document does not Cross-exbecome a witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he is called as a called to witness. 140. Witnesses to character may be cross-examined and Witnesses re-examined. produce a document. to character. 141. Any question suggesting the answer which the Leading questions. person putting it wishes or expects to receive, is called a leading question. not be 142. Leading questions must not, if objected to by the When adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in they must a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court. asked. The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters |