# provisions of section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

- **Citation:** C.L.No.31/VII-b-32
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1951-03-30
- **Case number:** C.L.No.31/VII-b-32
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/provisions-of-section-275-of-the-code-of-criminal-procedure-163906
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

470
C.L.No.31/VII-b-32 dated 30th March, 1951

The letter noted in the bloc contains similar directions with respect to the
memorandum of the substance of the evidence in criminal cases with reference to the
provisions of section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
C.L.No.138/IV-f-46 dated 7th September, 1974

Judicial Officers and Judicial Magistrates should strictly follow the provisions of
law while recording evidence in civil and criminal cases respectively in accordance with
rules 5 and 8 of Order XVIII, C.P.C. and section 275 and 276 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973
C.L.No.44/IV-h-36 dated 8th March, 1977
The Munsif-Magistrates and the Judicial Magistrates should, either themselves
type evidence on the typewriters or record the evidence in their own handwriting.
C.L.No.33/IV f-46/84 dated 8th May, 1984

The provisions of the rules regarding recording of evidence in civil and criminal
cases are not being observed by some of the presiding officers of the subordinate courts.
The normal practice has deteriorated to recording of statement by the reader while
presiding officer is busy in hearing arguments. This practice is in contravention of
imperative legal requirement as enjoined in rules 5 and 8 of Order XVIII, C.P.C. and
sections 275 and 276 Cr.P.C., 1973.

Attention of all the Presiding Officers is invited to the aforesaid provisions of law
in regard to the recording of evidence in civil and criminal cases. These provisions must
be strictly followed in recording evidence.
(iv)
Medical experts
C.L.No.144/VIII-b-52 dated 17th September, 1974

Injuries should invariably be noted in detail while recording the depositions of
medical experts examined by the defense in the subordinate courts.
(v)
Recording of evidence by commissioner
G.L.No.5686/44-22(5) dated 21st December, 1925

The definition of a court in section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act includes
commissioners appointed to record evidence under Order XXVI of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Such commissioners ought to exercise the powers of a court in disallowing
irrelevant and improper questions. Such powers should be exercised with discretion and
where there is room for doubt a commissioner will be well advised to note the objection
and record the question and answer leaving it to the court, which issued the commission
to decide on its relevancy. But where a question is clearly irrelevant or offends against
the provisions of sections 142, 148, 149, 151 or 152 or similar provision of law, the
commissioner himself may disallow it.
C.L.No.112 dated 5th December, 1958

A lawyer when appointed to examine witnesses on commission should give
timely notice to the witness of the date, time and place fixed for the execution of the
471
commission either by the issue of summons in the ordinary manner or by means of a
letter sent by registered post acknowledgement due. In case the witness is a government
servant, information should be sent to him through the head of his department. In all
cases, the convenience of the witness should as much be taken into account as the
convenience of the parties before the commission is executed.
(vi)
Documentary evidence
G.L.No.1/67-2 dated 17th January, 1930 with relevant abstracts from
G.L.No.3652/44-21 dated 4th July, 1922 and
C.L.No.92/VII-d-121 dated 23rd August, 1952

Attention is invited to instructions reproduced below and contained in General
Letter no. 3652/44-21, dated the 4th July, 1921:
(1) Order XIII, rule 1 sub-rule (i) requires that all documents upon which the parties
or their pleaders intend to rely, and which are in their possession or power shall be
produced at the first hearing of the suit, and rule 2 lays down that no such
documents shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings except for
good cause shown and for reasons to be recorded by the court. For the purposes of
rule 1, a certified copy of a public document is a document ̳in the powers' of a
party. Document produced for the cross-examination of witnesses or handed over
to a witness merely to refresh his memory do not fall within this rule.
(2) A form for the list of documents mentioned in rule 1, sub-rule (ii) has been
prescribed by the High Court. No document should be received unless
accompanied by a list in this form and it is the duty of the court, after the
document has been received, to note in the appropriate column of the form what
has become of the document after its receipt by the court.
(3) A document the genuiness of which is admitted by the party against whom it is
sought to be used does not require to be proved, and if admitted to be relevant and
otherwise admissible should be endorsed in the manner prescribed by Order XIII,
rule 4 and marked with an exhibit mark as provided by Order XIII, rule 13,
presiding officers should never omit to put their signature below the exhibit mark.
An entry should at the same time be made in column 3 of the list, the exhibit mark
being noted in column 1.
(4) If the admissibility of a document is denied on the ground of irrelevance or for
any other cause (e.g. want of registration or of proper stamp, etc.) the court should
proceed at once to determine the question.

If the document is held to be admissible, it should be retained, subject to
proof being given of it in cases where its genuiness has been denied. When such
proof has been given the document should be admitted, endorsed and marked as
directed in the preceding paragraph and a note recorded in column 3 of the list. If
it is a certified copy, its admissibility should be determined in accordance with
section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If the document is held to be
irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, it should be rejected or impounded, as the
case may be.