# 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-163910
- **Pages:** 2

## 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The law relating to the production of unpublished official records as evidence in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.
474

In a case of doubt, the head of the department should invariably refer to the higher
authority for orders.

These instructions apply as well to cases in which the Government is a party to
the suit. In such cases, much will depend on the legal advice as to the value of the
documents, but before they are produced in court, the considerations stated above must
be borne in mind, and reference to a higher authority made, when necessary. The
government servant, who is to attend a court, as a witness with official documents should,
where permission under section 128 has been withheld, be given an order duly signed by
the head of the department in the form given in the letter. He should produce it when he
is called upon to give his evidence, and should explain that he is not at liberty to produce
the document before the court, or to give any evidence derived from them. He should,
however, take with him the papers, which he has been summoned to produce.

The head of the department should abstain from entering into correspondence
with the presiding officer of the court concerned in regard to the grounds on which the
documents have been called for. He should obey the court's orders and should appear
personally, or arrange for the appearance of another officer in court with the documents,
and act as indicated above and produce the certificate if he claims privilege.
C.L.No.49/VIII-d-8 dated 4th April, 1952
If only the production of a document or formal proof of a routine letter and the
signatures fixed thereon is required, the choice of the agency through which it should be
produced or formally proved may be left to the head of the office. If for any reasons the
personal testimony of any particular officer is required, the propriety of his examination
on commission may be considered before a summons is issued.
C.L.No.44/VIII-d-8/Admn.(G) dated 26th July, 1989
It invites attention of all the presiding officers to the aforesaid circular letter for
strict compliance.
C.L.No.121/VIII-h-28 dated 9th December, 1952
Whenever any party wishes to summon a document from a government office or
department or to have a summons issued to a high government officer or a member of the
Government, it should be carefully scrutinized by the munsarim and if necessary, also by
the presiding officer of the court before it is issued and in no case should summons be
issued to a higher government officer or a member of the Government without the orders
of the presiding officer of the court.
C.L.No.121/VIII-h-28 dated 9th December, 1952
When a document is summoned from the custody of the Government the
summons should be issued to the Secretary of the relative department and if it cannot be
ascertained to which department the document relates, the summons should be addressed
to the Chief Secretary with sufficient particulars of the document required.
C.L.No.49/VIII-d-8 dated 4th April, 1952
The personal appearance of Gazetted Officers of the Accountant General's office
should be dispensed with unless necessary in the interest of justice.