Section 140

This provision continues a rule that existed in the earlier Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 135), largely unchanged. Trials need a practical, predictable way to decide who testifies first — for example, the prosecution or plaintiff usually presents witnesses before the defense. Rather than rewriting these procedural details into evidence law, the section simply points to the relevant procedural codes (like the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) and lets judges fill gaps where no fixed rule exists, ensuring courts aren't paralyzed by silence in the rules.

Courts have historically treated this as a procedural, not substantive, provision — meaning the order of witnesses rarely affects the validity of a judgment unless it causes real unfairness or prejudice to a party. Judges have consistently held that they retain broad discretion in the absence of specific procedural rules, and appellate courts are usually reluctant to overturn a decision solely because witnesses were called in an unusual sequence.

• Myth: There is one fixed, universal order for calling witnesses in every case under this law.
  Fact: The section doesn't set a specific order itself — it defers to other procedural laws (civil or criminal) and only gives judges discretion when those laws are silent.
• Myth: If witnesses are called in an unusual order, the whole trial becomes invalid.
  Fact: Courts have generally treated this as a procedural matter; unless real unfairness or prejudice results, an unusual witness order alone doesn't invalidate proceedings.