# relevant to a case - **Citation:** C.L.No. 9 - **Court:** Allahabad High Court - **Decided:** 1968-11-14 - **Case number:** C.L.No. 9 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/relevant-to-a-case-163879 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 465 examination of witnesses. If courts themselves are not satisfied as to what is relevant and what is not relevant matter in a suit, they will find it difficult to keep a proper control upon this matter. Reams of paper and much valuable time are wasted simply because a court is timorous about stopping vakils from asking questions on what is really not relevant to a case. Attention is also called to the desirability of taking as conclusive (save as excepted by section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), the answer of a witness upon a question put as to credit only, and not treating the mere making of the suggestion involved in the question as indicating any foundation for it. The Indian Evidence Act contains ample provisions regarding the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. The Presiding Officer should refresh his memory concerning these important matters Cross-examination on immaterial and irrelevant matters, or a needlessly lengthy cross-examination on relevant matters, is improper. District Judges, when making an inspection, should take out records and point out to presiding officers if they find that errors have been committed in this direction and indicate to them how the cross-examination in a particular case should have been directed. A Civil Judge who wanders off into irrelevant matters is unfit for the duties of a District Judge. Subordinate courts should be firm in disallowing irrelevant and improper questions and if counsels do not abstain from putting them should note on the record the fact that counsel here entered upon irrelevant or improper cross-examination and the court refused to put it upon the record. G.L.No.13/67-4 dated 4th April, 1932 The character of witness should not be assailed and aspersions made against him by a court in its judgment without allowing an opportunity to the witness to meet and explain what is in the Judge's mind against him. It is the plain duty of a Judge not to leave such questions in the air and then introduce them suddenly into his judgment. (v) Fees Payable by a party to finger print expert C.L.No. 9 dated 24th May, 1909 modified in accordance with para 82(b)(8) and 60 of Finger Print Manual (Also see amendment no.1) A fee of Rs. 15 per case, if the number of impressions to be compared is five or less; of Rs. 3 for every additional impression, of Rs. 3 for every impression photographed, subject to a minimum of Rs. 10 per case, have been fixed as fees to be paid by the party at whose instance a reference is made to the Finger Prints Bureau for an opinion. Should the party desire to summon an expert to give evidence, he should be required to pay a further fee of Rs. 20, Rs. 30 or Rs.40 according as the expert concerned is of the rank of a sub-inspector, Inspector or Deputy Superintendent of Police, besides travelling allowance. 466 All applications should be addressed to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Finger Print Bureau, Criminal Investigation Department, U.P., Lucknow. C.L.No.3175-17 dated 24th September, 1912, as modified by Amendment no. 1 to Finger Print Manual The above fees including traveling allowance, should be paid into the local treasury for credit to head ―XVII-A-Police Fees, Fines and Forfeitures, other fees, fines, etc.‖ in the police budget, the treasury receipt being sent along with the exhibits, to the filed at the Bureau. The fact should also be mentioned in the letter forwarding the exhibits for expert opinion. Payable to Central Forensic Science Laboratory C.E. No.108/VIIb-53/9 dated 17th December, 1968 According to G.O.No. 3518/6-827-1968, dated November 14, 1968, from Under Secretary, U.P. Government, the fees for examination of exhibits sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta, are to be paid in the treasury under the head ―XIX Police (Central)‖ at Rs. 15 per exhibit and copy of the treasury challan should accompany the articles required for examination. Process Fee G.L.No.19/35(a)-5(1) dated 30th May, 1930 read with G.L.No. 48/35(a)-4(22) dated 4th May, 1936 Under rule 8, Order XVI, First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure in cases where service of summons is made by a party or his agent no process fee should be charged. A note should be kept in each court of the number of processes served by parties themselves and these figures should be totaled and mentioned in the annual report. The courts should take steps to ensure that the witnesses summoned are protected against loss by the failure of the party summoning them to pay their legitimate expenses. It is the clear duty of a court before summoning a witness to see that the necessary expenses to secure his attendance have been deposited in court, otherwise the court will not be in a position to proceed against him for non-attendance as laid down in rule 12 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure ―Dasti‖ summonses have, however, been permitted for the convenience of the parties, and there will be no objection if on the summons a condition is attached that the witness need not attend unless he has received his expenses. The responsibility would thus be thrown on the party of bringing his witness. The court would only intervene if the witness received his expenses and then did not answer the summons. G.L.No.15 dated 2nd March, 1933 The process fee, in cases, which are sent by civil courts to revenue courts for deciding an issue, should be realized at the rate of Rs.1.25 per four defendants or less.