Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
ꯟꯌꯥꯕꯄꯤꯕꯑꯁꯤꯃꯔꯤꯂꯩꯅꯩꯑꯃꯁꯨꯡꯃꯈꯣꯏꯕꯨꯁꯦꯝꯂꯤꯕꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏꯅꯠꯇ꯭ꯔꯒꯃꯍꯥꯛꯀꯤꯃꯤꯍꯨꯠꯅꯄꯥꯝꯖꯕꯑꯗꯨꯒꯤꯃꯥꯌꯣꯛꯇ ꯄ ꯭ ꯔꯃꯥꯟꯇꯧꯕꯌꯥꯏ; ꯑꯗꯨꯕꯨꯃꯈꯣꯏꯑꯁꯤꯃꯈꯣꯏꯕꯨꯁꯦꯝꯂꯤꯕꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏꯑꯗꯨꯅꯅꯠꯇ꯭ꯔꯒꯃꯗꯨꯒꯤꯃꯥꯏꯀꯩꯗꯒꯤꯅꯠꯇ꯭ꯔꯒꯃꯍꯥꯛꯀꯤ ꯃꯤꯍꯨꯠꯅꯄꯥꯝꯖꯕꯑꯣꯏꯅꯄ ꯭ ꯔꯃꯥꯟꯇꯧꯕꯌꯥꯗꯦ, ꯃꯈꯥꯗꯄꯤꯔꯤꯕꯀꯦꯁꯁꯤꯡꯑꯗꯨꯅꯠꯇꯅ, ꯍꯥꯏꯕꯗꯤ: - (꯱) ꯑꯌꯥꯕꯄꯤꯕꯑꯁꯤꯃꯗꯨꯁꯦꯝꯂꯤꯕꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏꯑꯗꯨꯅꯅꯠꯇ꯭ꯔꯒꯃꯍꯥꯛꯀꯤꯃꯥꯏꯀꯩꯗꯒꯤꯄ ꯭ ꯔꯃꯥꯟꯇꯧꯕꯌꯥꯏ, ꯃꯁꯤꯑꯁꯤꯒꯨꯝꯕ ꯃꯍꯧꯁꯥꯒꯤꯑꯣꯏꯕꯃꯇꯝꯗ, ꯀꯔꯤꯒꯨꯝꯕꯃꯗꯨꯁꯦꯝꯂꯤꯕꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏꯑꯗꯨꯅꯁꯤꯔꯕꯗꯤ, ꯃꯁꯤꯁꯦꯛꯁꯟ26ꯒꯤꯃꯈꯥꯗꯑꯍꯨꯝꯁꯨꯕ ꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏꯁꯤꯡꯒꯤꯃꯔꯛꯇꯂꯩꯕꯒꯨꯝꯅꯃꯔꯤꯂꯩꯅꯕꯑꯣꯏꯒꯅꯤ; (꯲) ꯑꯌꯥꯕꯄꯤꯕꯑꯁꯤꯃꯗꯨꯁꯦꯝꯂꯤꯕꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏꯑꯗꯨꯅꯅꯠꯇ꯭ꯔꯒꯃꯍꯥꯛꯀꯤꯃꯥꯏꯀꯩꯗꯒꯤ, ꯃꯁꯤꯗꯋꯥꯈꯜꯅꯠꯇ꯭ꯔꯒꯍꯛꯆꯥꯡꯒꯤ ꯐꯤꯚꯝꯑꯃꯍꯦꯛꯇꯂꯩꯕꯒꯤꯋꯥꯐꯝꯑꯃꯌꯥꯎꯕꯃꯇꯝꯗ, ꯃꯔꯤꯂꯩꯅꯕꯅꯠꯇ꯭ꯔꯒꯋꯥꯊꯣꯛꯂꯩꯕꯃꯇꯝꯗ, ꯑꯁꯤꯒꯨꯝꯕꯋꯥꯈꯜꯅꯠꯇ꯭ꯔꯒ ꯍꯛꯆꯥꯡꯒꯤꯐꯤꯕꯝꯑꯁꯤꯂꯩꯕꯃꯇꯝꯗꯅꯠꯇ꯭ꯔꯒꯃꯗꯨꯒꯤꯑꯀꯣꯏꯕꯗꯁꯦꯝꯈꯤꯕꯃꯇꯝꯗ, ꯑꯃꯁꯨꯡꯃꯁꯤꯒꯤꯑꯔꯥꯟꯕꯑꯗꯨ ꯑꯣꯏꯊꯣꯛꯄꯌꯥꯗꯅꯕꯑꯣꯏꯍꯜꯂꯤꯕꯊꯧꯁꯤꯜꯒꯂꯣꯏꯅꯅꯥꯎꯠꯄꯌꯥꯏ꯫ (꯳) ꯑꯌꯥꯕꯄꯤꯕꯑꯁꯤꯃꯗꯨꯁꯦꯝꯂꯤꯕꯃꯤꯑꯣꯏꯑꯗꯨꯅꯅꯠꯇ꯭ꯔꯒꯃꯍꯥꯛꯀꯤꯃꯥꯏꯀꯩꯗꯒꯤꯄ ꯭ ꯔꯃꯥꯟꯇꯧꯕꯌꯥꯏ, ꯀꯔꯤꯒꯨꯝꯕ ꯃꯁꯤꯑꯌꯥꯕꯄꯤꯕꯗꯅꯠꯇꯅꯑꯇꯣꯞꯄꯃꯑꯣꯡꯗꯃꯔꯤꯂꯩꯅꯕꯑꯣꯏꯔꯕꯗꯤ꯫ ꯏꯂꯨꯍꯁ ꯭ ꯇ꯭ꯔꯦꯁꯟꯁ꯫ (a) A ꯑꯃꯁꯨꯡBꯒꯤꯃꯔꯛꯇꯍꯪꯒꯗꯕꯋꯥꯐꯝꯗꯤ, ꯑꯀꯛꯅꯕꯗꯤꯗꯑꯃꯁꯦꯝꯖꯤꯟꯈ꯭ꯔꯕ꯭ꯔꯥꯅꯠꯇ꯭ꯔꯒꯁꯦꯝꯖꯤꯟꯇꯧꯗ꯭ꯔꯕ꯭ꯔ ꯍꯥꯏꯕꯁꯤꯅꯤ꯫Aꯅꯃꯁꯤꯑꯆꯨꯝꯕꯅꯤꯍꯥꯏꯅꯂꯦꯞꯊꯣꯛꯏ, Bꯅꯃꯁꯤꯁꯦꯝꯖꯤꯟꯈ꯭ꯔꯦꯍꯥꯏꯕꯅꯤ꯫ꯑꯦꯅBꯅꯗꯤꯗꯑꯗꯨꯑꯆꯨꯝꯕꯅꯤꯍꯥꯏꯅ ꯄ ꯭ ꯔꯃꯥꯟꯇꯧꯕꯌꯥꯏ, ꯑꯃꯁꯨꯡBꯅAꯅꯗꯤꯗꯑꯗꯨꯁꯦꯝꯖꯤꯟꯈ꯭ꯔꯦꯍꯥꯏꯕꯋꯥꯐꯝꯑꯃꯄ ꯭ ꯔꯃꯥꯟꯇꯧꯕꯌꯥꯏ; ꯑꯗꯨꯕꯨꯑꯦꯅꯗꯤꯗꯑꯗꯨ ꯑꯆꯨꯝꯕꯅꯤꯍꯥꯏꯅꯃꯁꯥꯒꯤꯑꯣꯏꯅꯄ ꯭ ꯔꯃꯥꯟꯄꯤꯕꯉꯝꯗꯦ, ꯅꯠꯇ꯭ꯔꯒꯕꯤꯅꯗꯤꯗꯑꯗꯨꯁꯦꯝꯖꯤꯟꯈ꯭ꯔꯦꯍꯥꯏꯕꯋꯥꯐꯝꯑꯃꯄ ꯭ ꯔꯃꯥꯟꯇꯧꯕꯁꯨ ꯉꯝꯗꯦ꯫ (b) ꯖꯍꯥꯖꯑꯃꯒꯤꯀꯦꯞꯇꯦꯟA ꯑꯁꯤꯃꯍꯥꯛꯄꯨꯊꯥꯗꯣꯛꯄꯒꯤꯗꯃꯛꯋꯥꯌꯦꯜꯆꯠꯊꯔꯤ꯫ꯖꯍꯥꯖꯑꯗꯨꯃꯍꯥꯛꯀꯤꯑꯆꯨꯝꯕꯂꯝꯕꯤꯗꯒꯤ ꯂꯧꯊꯣꯛꯈꯤꯍꯥꯏꯕꯎꯠꯅꯕꯄ ꯭ ꯔꯃꯥꯟꯄꯤꯔꯤ꯫Aꯅꯃꯍꯥꯛꯀꯤꯂꯂꯣꯟꯏꯇꯤꯛꯑꯗꯨꯒꯤꯑꯆꯝꯕꯈꯣꯡꯊꯥꯡꯗꯃꯍꯥꯛꯅꯊꯝꯈꯤꯕꯂꯥꯏꯔꯤꯛ ꯑꯃꯥꯄꯨꯊꯣꯛꯏꯃꯗꯨꯗꯃꯍꯥꯛꯅꯅꯨꯃꯤꯠꯈꯨꯗꯤꯡꯒꯤꯂꯧꯈꯤꯕꯅꯤꯍꯥꯏꯅꯂꯧꯔꯤꯕꯑꯣꯕꯖꯔꯕꯦꯁꯟꯁꯤꯡꯎꯠꯂꯤ, from day to day, and indicating that the ship was not taken out of her proper course. A may prove these statements, because they would be admissible between third parties, if he were dead, under clause (b) of section 26. (c)Ais accused of a crime committed by him at Kolkata. He produces a letter written by himself and dated at Chennai on that day, and bearing the Chennai post-mark of that day. The statement in the date of the letter is admissible, because, if A were dead, it would be admissible under clause (b) of section 26. (d) A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value.A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue. (e) A is accused of fraudulently having in his possession counterfeit currency which he knew to be counterfeit. He offers to prove that he asked a skilful person to examine the currency as he doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that person did examine it and told him it was genuine. A may prove these facts.