# Number of each type of witnesses already examined and to be examined

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 34/Admn
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 2009-05-19
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 34/Admn
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/number-of-each-type-of-witnesses-already-examined-and-to-be-examined-163569
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

339
2.
Number of each type of witnesses already examined and to be examined.
3.
Time already spent and time to be taken.
4.
Suggestions of the District Judge for the disposal of the case.
C.L. No. C.V./8/78 dated 6th October, 1978
The Presiding Officers should avoid keeping part-heard criminal cases pending
unnecessarily on their files.
C.L. No. 34/Admn. (A) dated 26th March, 1980
The successor Sessions Judge may resume trial of part heard sessions cases
keeping in mind section 326 of Cr.P.C. (As Amended by Central Act No. 45 of 1978)
which permits the succeeding officer to resume trial from the stage left by his
predecessor. Since section 326 relates to procedural law, it can apply to the sessions
cases pending since before the commencement of the amended Act.
C.L. No. 76/IV-e/Admn. (A) dated 15th September, 1980
The above mentioned circular is modified to the extent that its provisions shall
not apply to sessions trial that were pending on April, 1, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) came
into force.
C.L. No. 71/53B/Admn. (A) dated 7th November, 1983
Whenever any Additional Sessions Judge (including Additional District and
Sessions Judge) is transferred from one court to another court in a local arrangement, he
shall submit a list, of all the part heard sessions trials in which recording of evidence has
commenced, to the Sessions Judge, who shall record an order for transferring such trials
to the file of the court to which the Additional Sessions Judge has been transferred.
C.L. No. 41/VIIb-116 dated 2nd June, 1984
The attention of all the District Judges and C.J.Ms is invited to the full Court
judgment delivered in the case of Radhey Shyam vs. State of U.P. reported in 1984 All.
L.J. 666 regarding power of Sessions Judges to transfer part heard case or appeal from
court of an additional Sessions Judge to another competent court within his sessions
division.
C.L. No. 54/VIIC-25 dated 31st August, 1984
It invites attention of all the Sessions Judges to sections 6, 7 and 8 of the U.P.
Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983, and says that the Sessions Judge is not competent to
entertain a transfer applications in respect of a case pending before the special court if
there is only one special court in the sessions division. The Sessions Judge can entertain
an application for transfer when there are two or more special courts in the sessions
division.
37.
EVIDENCE
G.L. No. 5 dated 7th March, 1952
Some Magistrates and Sessions Judges do not examine accused persons correctly.
This not unoften leads to a waste of the appellate court's time. Mistakes are also made by
340
officers in regard to the use of evidence brought on record under section 288 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
Attention of all Sessions Judges and District Magistrates is drawn to the Supreme
Court's judgment in Tara Singh versus State in which these matters have been fully
considered. The case is reported in 1951, A.L.J., at page 640.
C.L No. 46/VII-b-31 dated 4th May, 1953
Attention of all Additional and Assistant Sessions Judges and Sessions Judges is
drawn to the Court's judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 748 of 1949 reported in I.L.R.
(1953) (1) All. 197,regarding the scope and object of sections 162 and 288+ of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and section 145 of the Evidence Act.
Discharge of International obligation assumed by India under the Hague
Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial matters by
resorting to the procedure for recording evidence as provided under the Convention
by Indian Courts.
C.L. No. 27/2009/Admin. ̳G-II': Dated: May 19, 2009

Upon consideration of D.O. No. 9(1)/09-Judl; Dated 9.1.2009 of Sri T.K.
Vishwanathan, Law Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Law & Justice,
Department of Legal Affairs, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi informing about accession to
the Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial matters and
thereby arising international obligation under the said Convention to follow the procedure
for evidence as per provisions of the Convention, the Hon'ble Court has desired that the
Subordinate Courts under its administrative control should be directed to sincerely abide
by procedure as provided in Hague Convention on Taking Evidence Abroad in Civil and
Commercial matters for recording the evidence.

While enclosing a copy of the complete text of the Hague Convention on Taking
Evidence Abroad in Civil and Commercial matters and a copy of letter dated 9.1.2009 of
Sri T.K. Vishwanathan, Law Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Law and
Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, I am directed to request you to kindly impress upon
the Judicial Officers working under your administrative control to ensure compliance of
the above directions of the Hon'ble Court with all sincerity.
Execution of Requests for service of summons/notices under The Hague Convention
on service Abroad of the Judicial or Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and
Commercial Matters, 1965.
C.L. No. 24/2009/Admin. ̳G-II': Dated: May 15, 2009

Upon consideration of the letter dated 30.09.2008 of the Government of India,
Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs whereby, it has been informed
that India has become a party to the Hague Convention on Service Abroad of the Judicial
or Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial matters, 1965 with effect from 1st
August 2007 and as a result of this, has assumed an obligation to ensure service of

 Note: Since repealed by Cr.P.C., 1973
 Note: Now Chief Judicial Magistrate