# arise and not left to be decided at the time of delivery of judgment

- **Citation:** C.L.No. 4-VII-d-121
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1980-01-16
- **Case number:** C.L.No. 4-VII-d-121
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arise-and-not-left-to-be-decided-at-the-time-of-delivery-of-judgment-163909
- **Pages:** 1

## Text

473
C.L.No. 4-VII-d-121 dated 16th January, 1980
The courts should insist upon the list of documents and their production in court
being made as far as possible in chronological or some other methodical order. Questions
as to relevancy and the admissibility of documents should be decided as and when they
arise and not left to be decided at the time of delivery of judgment.
C.L.No.22/VIII b-82 dated 28th March, 1987
Rule 259 of the General Rules (Civil) and rule 151 of the General Rules
(Criminal) require that all the copies shall be certified by the copying department. To add
authenticity to the photostat copies it is absolutely necessary that they should be cetified
by the competent authority as envisaged in section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The practice to accept uncertified copies in judicial proceedings is not permissible under
the law.

All the judicial officers are required to see that uncertified copies, whether
photostat or otherwise must not be accepted in any case.
(vii)
Official documents
G.L.No.70/180-44(3) dated 16th December, 1935
The law relating to the production of unpublished official records as evidence in
court is contained in section 123, 124 and 162 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of
1872).

The Court if it sees fit, may inspect the document unless it refers to matters of
State or take other evidence to enable it to determine its admissibility. If for such a
purpose it is necessary to cause any document to be translated, the court may, if it thinks
fit, direct the translator to keep the contents secret, unless the document is to be given in
evidence, and if the interpreter disobeys such direction, he shall be held to have
committed an offence under section 166 of the Indian Penal Code.

For the purposes of section 123 of the expression ―officer at the head of the
department‖ may be held to mean the head of the office in whose custody the documents
required by the court is, and vis-à-vis the court which demands its production, that officer
should be treated as the authority to withhold or give the necessary permission.

In respect of documents emanating (1) from a higher authority, or which have
formed the subject of correspondence with such higher authority or (2) from other
Governments, the head of the department should obtain the consent of the Government of
India through the usual official channel before agreeing to produce the documents in
court, or allowing evidence based on them unless the papers are intended for publication,
or are of a purely formal or routine nature, when a reference to a higher authority any be
dispensed with.

In the case of papers other than those specified above, the head of the department
should not allow production of the correspondence if it relates to matters which are
generally regarded as confidential or a disclosure of which would in his opinion be
detrimental to the public interest, or to matters which are in dispute in some other
connection, or to matters which are in dispute in some other connection, or have given
rise to a controversy between the Government and some other party.