Judge's power to put questions or order production
Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 deals with judge's power to put questions or order production. The Judge may, in order to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts, ask any question he considers necessary, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact; The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
The Judge may, in order to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts, ask any question he considers necessary, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties about any fact; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their representatives shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court, to cross-examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question:
Provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Adhiniyam to be relevant, and duly proved:
Provided further that this section shall not authorise any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question, or to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under sections 127 to 136, both inclusive, if the question were asked or the document were called for by the adverse party; nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other person to ask under section 151 or 152; nor shall he dispense with primary evidence of any document, except in the cases hereinbefore excepted.
Section 168, The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Act 47 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Evidence Act
IEA 165 Judge’s power to put questions or order production Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of Haryana vs Ram Mehar and OTHERS Etc Etc
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 165, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power to recall and re-examine witnesses under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure, despite its broad language permitting exercise at any stage of trial, cannot be exercised merely on the ground that defense counsel was ill or inadvertently failed to put certain questions to witnesses. The exercise of such power must be justified by established legal principles requiring that the evidence appears essential to just decision of the case, and must serve the ends of justice by discovering truth and obtaining proper proof of facts. Mere illness of counsel or subsequent discovery of inadvertent omissions in cross-examination by a changed counsel do not constitute valid grounds for recall when substantial trial has proceeded, accused have had multiple opportunities to defend, and no showing is made that justice has been denied. The concept of fair trial, while fundamental to Article 21, must be balanced against the interests of victims and society, and cannot be stretched to such extent that it mortgages the systemic order of conducting trials per the Code of Criminal Procedure or permits abuse of process in the name of fairness.
On this section: Right of judge to put questions to witnesses; cited to establish active role of court in examining witnesses to ascertain truth
-
Sister Mina Lalitha Baruwa vs State of Orissa
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 165, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings involving allegations of grave offences such as rape, where a statutory witness (particularly a judicial officer) makes oral testimony that directly contradicts documentary evidence prepared by that witness himself, and such contradiction is brought to the trial court's notice by the victim or any party, the trial court is duty-bound under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall and re-examine that witness if the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. This duty arises independently of whether the victim invokes Section 301 Cr.P.C. (which limits victim's prosecution role), because the proper reconciliation of Sections 301 and 311 permits victims to bring material errors to court's notice, and courts must respond by invoking their broad powers under Section 311 to rectify glaring contradictions. Courts cannot remain passive spectators when such irregularities are brought to notice; they must maintain an active, participatory role to prevent miscarriage of justice. The court's duty is not conditioned by delay if the error is material and affects the just decision of the case.
On this section: Provides courts with power to examine witnesses; considered complementary to Section 311 Cr.P.C. in enabling courts to take active role in examining witnesses to arrive at truth
-
Ladi vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Evidence Act 165, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused has an indefeasible right to fair trial and equal opportunity to prove his innocence. Electronically recorded conversations are admissible as documentary evidence under the amended Indian Evidence Act and Information Technology Act 2000 when: (1) the conversation is relevant to matters in issue; (2) the voice is properly identified; and (3) the accuracy of the recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of tampering, erasure, addition or manipulation. Courts must exercise their powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 Evidence Act to examine witnesses and elicit evidence essential to just decision, taking a participatory role in trials to arrive at truth. When a witness has not been cross-examined on material evidence that subsequently emerges, courts should grant opportunity for re-examination to ensure fair trial.
On this section: Extensively discussed as conferring vast and wide powers on Judge to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts by asking questions and ordering production of documents. Court emphasized this power is complementary to Section 311 CrPC and requires active judicial participation in truth-seeking.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 168
What have the courts held on Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
State of Haryana vs Ram Mehar and OTHERS Etc Etc (24 Aug 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IEA 165, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Right of judge to put questions to witnesses; cited to establish active role of court in examining witnesses to ascertain truth. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BSA 168, section 168 BSA, section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. People searching for it also type 168 bsa act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Haryana vs Ram Mehar and OTHERS Etc Etc (24 Aug 2016).
What should I read with Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 127 (Judges and Magistrates), section 136 (Production of documents or electronic records which another person, having possession, could refuse to produce), section 151 (Court to decide when question shall be asked and when witness compelled to answer), section 152 (Question not to be asked without reasonable grounds), so none of them can safely be read on its own. It carries forward IEA 165 (Judge’s power to put questions or order production), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam come into force?
Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, cited as BSA 168, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 26. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1128 words
- 12. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body or bodily feeling1076 words
- 95. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement815 words
- 2. Definitions794 words
- 6. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 63. Admissibility of electronic records764 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.