Site navigation

In Hira H. Advani v. State of Maharashtra, decided in 1969, which provision of the Indian Evidence Act,…

Hira H. Advani held that questioning under section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 was not testimony in court for the purpose of section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act,…

Choose your answer

In Hira H. Advani v. State of Maharashtra, decided in 1969, which provision of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 did the Supreme Court hold inapplicable to questioning by a Customs Officer under section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, because the person was not giving evidence before a court?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer B

Hira H. Advani held that questioning under section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 was not testimony in court for the purpose of section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The case concerns that historical statutory framework.

Option feedback

Option A

Section 131 concerns refusal to produce protected documents. It does not supply the witness immunity at issue.

Option B

The Court held that section 132 did not apply to the Customs questioning because the person was not giving evidence in court.

Option C

Section 133 concerns an accomplice’s competency, a different issue.

Option D

Section 134 concerns the number of witnesses and does not supply the immunity considered by the Court.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic