Using, as evidence, of document production of which was refused on notice
Section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with using, as evidence, of document production of which was refused on notice. When a party refuses to produce a document which he has had notice to produce, he cannot afterwards use the document as evidence without the consent of the other party or the order of the Court. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
When a party refuses to produce a document which he has had notice to produce, he cannot afterwards use the document as evidence without the consent of the other party or the order of the Court.
Illustration
A sues B on an agreement and gives B notice to produce it. At the trial A calls for the document and B refuses to produce it. A gives secondary evidence of its contents. B seeks to produce the document itself to contradict the secondary evidence given by A, or in order to show that the agreement is not stamped. He cannot do so.
Section 164, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 167 Using, as evidence, of document production of which was refused on notice Text carried over almost unchanged 100%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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 Gujarat vs Visheshbhai Kali Chhaganbhai Gangavane
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not substantive evidence but a former statement made before a legally competent authority. Such statements can be used for corroboration or contradiction of witness testimony and can be admitted and exhibited without the Magistrate who recorded them being examined as a witness. The correct legal framework for admitting such judicial records is Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, which creates a presumption of genuineness and proper recording, not Section 89 which applies only to secondary evidence cases under Sections 65(a) and 66.
On this section: Provides that party refusing to produce document after notice cannot later use it as evidence without consent or court order
-
Rakesh Kumar Gudda vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court is only required to consider whether the material on record, taken on its face value, discloses the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offences. Even strong suspicion against the accused for commission of alleged offence is good enough to frame a charge. The court need not assess whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction. A confessional statement made by co-accused to police officer, though inadmissible against the person making it under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, does not vitiate the charge if other oral and circumstantial evidence, including motive, association, and recovery of weapon pursuant to disclosure statement under Section 27, prima facie establishes involvement of the accused. Bail on medical grounds should be granted where the accused is suffering from serious medical conditions resistant to treatment and the trial has progressed sufficiently to reduce risk of witness tampering.
On this section: Statements of witnesses recorded by magistrate; used as corroborating evidence of motive and conspiracy
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 164
What have the courts held on Section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act?
State of Gujarat vs Visheshbhai Kali Chhaganbhai Gangavane (07 Nov 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Provides that party refusing to produce document after notice cannot later use it as evidence without consent or court order. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2014 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act?
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: IEA 164, section 164 IEA, section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Gujarat vs Visheshbhai Kali Chhaganbhai Gangavane (07 Nov 2014).
What should I read with Section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 167 (Using, as evidence, of document production of which was refused on notice), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 164 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 164, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.