IEA Section 44 is now BSA 38: Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · applies to offences and proceedings before 1 July 2024

No changeIEA 44 → BSA 38

BPR&D's comparison records no change in the text, only a new number.

Printed in both official correspondence tables (BPR&D and NCRB).

IEA 44: Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved

Before 1 July 2024

Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under section 40, 41 or 42, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion.

BSA 38: Fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of Court, may be proved

From 1 July 2024

Any party to a suit or other proceeding may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under section 34, 35 or 36, and which has been proved by the adverse party, was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion.

Everything BSA 38 replaced →

Which one applies

Under section 170(2) of the BSA, an application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal already pending on 1 July 2024 is dealt with under the Evidence Act; one begun on or after that date, under the BSA.

Read BSA section 170 →

Judgments decided under IEA 44

The provision moved without a change of substance, so what these judgments decide carries over; cite the new section alongside the old.

Sources

BPR&D is the Bureau of Police Research & Development (Ministry of Home Affairs); NCRB the National Crime Records Bureau. Their correspondence tables are training aids, not law. This page is general information, not legal advice on any case; the bare Acts as published by the Government of India are the authority.