# fixed as not to disturb the dates fixed for the hearing of murder cases

- **Citation:** C.L. No.18/IVg-4
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1954-03-12
- **Case number:** C.L. No.18/IVg-4
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/fixed-as-not-to-disturb-the-dates-fixed-for-the-hearing-of-murder-cases-163855
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

459
(v)
Election petitions
C.L. No.18/IVg-4 dated 12th March, 1954

Judicial officers appointed Election Tribunals for decision of election petitions
filed in respect of general elections to the Municipal Boards, Notified Area Committees
and Town Area Committees, may be asked to give preference to the disposal of election
petition over other cases, but the dates in election cases should, as far as possible, be so
fixed as not to disturb the dates fixed for the hearing of murder cases.
(vi)
 Jail premises
C.L. No.18/Admn.(A) dated 27th January, 1976

District Judges have discretion to permit Sessions Judges or Magistrates to hold
their courts at or near jail premises for hearing of bail application under D.I.R. or for
enquiring into or trying such cases on the condition that-
(a)
the place selected for holding the court is one to which the public generally
have access, so far as the same can conveniently contain them as provided
under section 327, Cr.P.C.
(b)
the executive authorities provide a car or jeep for the transport of the judge
or Magistrate and his staff.
District Judges have further discretion to permit Magistrates to hold mobile courts
for dealing with petty offences on the spot. The Magistrates holding such courts are not to
do any case in which he has personally witnessed the event. Overall supervision is of the
District Judge who should see that no individual Magistrate does this work for any length
of time. Provision of suitable separate transport, free of cost, to the Magistrate and his
staff is the responsibility of the Municipal or State authorities, but the Magistrates
holding such courts will not be treated as on deputation.
16.
AFFIDAVITS
C.L.No.1799 dated 10th June, 1909

Rules in Chapter IV of Rules of Court, 1952, deal with affidavits and should in all
cases be properly observed.

Particular attention should be paid to the following matter:
(1)
As directed by rule 8, affidavits should be divided into paragraphs, which
shall be numbered consecutively, and each paragraph should, as nearly as
may be, confine to a distinct portion of the subject.
(2)
When the deponent speaks to matters within his own knowledge, he must do
so directly and positively in manner contained in rule II.
(3)
When the deponent speaks to matters not within his personal knowledge, the
fact should always be stated in the manner prescribed in rule 12.
C.L. No.110/VII-f-98 dated 2nd September, 1971

Affidavits filed by or on behalf of the Government come within the purview of
proviso (i) to clause (bb) of section 3 of the Stamp Act and as such are exempt from
stamp duty.
460
 Verification
C.L.No. 23 dated 21st March, 1970

The preamble to the Code of Civil Procedure says that the Code consolidates and
amends the laws relating to the procedure of the courts of civil judicature. It, therefore,
follows that the authority to verify affidavits by the oath commissioners appointed under
section 139 of the Code is confined to proceedings before court of civil judicature alone,
and oath commissioners appointed under section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure
should not verify affidavits which are filed before administrative bodies or other
authorities which are not courts of civil judicature.
C.L.No.139/VII-d-27 dated 9th September, 1974

Oath commissioners appointed under the General Rules (Civil) 1957, Volume I be
also appointed for purposes of section 297, Cr.P.C., 1973 and affidavits sworn before an
oath commissioner appointed by the Sessions Judge could be used before any court.
C.L.No.84 dated 31st May 1976

The Magistrates should not themselves verify the affidavits filed in support of bail
application. They should be verified only by the oath commissioners.
C.L.No.23/VII-d-27 dated 26th March, 1954

All affidavits filed in subordinate courts must be properly sworn and verified. The
provisions of the rule contained in order XIX of Schedule I of the Code of Civil
Procedure as amended by this Court (particularly rule 11-A) should be strictly complied
with.
Scrutiny
C.L.No.825/44 dated 5th March, 1915

Courts and Munsarims are expected to scrutinize carefully all affidavits filed
under rule 46 General Rules (Civil), 1957, and to see that they are in accordance with the
Code of Civil Procedure (order XIX rules 3 to 15). If in error, they should be returned for
amendment before any order for production is passed upon them.

Particular attention is drawn to order XII, rule 2 especially to that portion of it
which relates to costs.
C. L. No. 5/2007, Dated 20th February 2007

The Hon'ble Court while communicating its disapproval of the practice of
applicants moving the Hon'ble Court straightaway without even availing of the provision
under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by passing the trial Courts, has held such practice to be
wholly unwholesome and has been pleased to observe as under in Judgement and order
dated 19.12.2006 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8495 of 2003 Smt. Santosh
Poonia v. State of U.P. and others-

―We fully endorse the fears and apprehensions of the learned
counsel but we cannot demand clairvoyance from Judicial Officers. The
only thing which a judicial officer can do and should do in these matters is
to examine the whole episode in the proper perspective keeping in mind