# vouchers or other documents summoned from the said office in any particular case

- **Citation:** C.L.No.44/VIII-d-8/Admn.(G)
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1989-07-26
- **Case number:** C.L.No.44/VIII-d-8/Admn.(G)
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vouchers-or-other-documents-summoned-from-the-said-office-in-any-particular-case-163918
- **Pages:** 1

## Text

475

The tracing of number of vouchers of a past period is not an easy task and courts
may also consider the possibility of reducing so far as may be practicable, the number of
vouchers or other documents summoned from the said office in any particular case.
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.24/VII-b-92 dated 14th April, 1955 as amended by
C.L.No.32 dated 18th July, 1967
Under departmental rules the Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad is
required to keep Photostat copies of vouchers or other documents required to be produced
in a court of law which are liable to be impounded under the powers vested in the court
under section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The preparation of photostat copies will have to be done at Delhi where necessary
equipment has been provided by the department. When calling for vouchers or other
documents a clear one and a half months notice should be given to the above office.
C.L.No.77/VIII-h-28 dated 11th August, 1953

Section 57(7) of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the court shall take judicial
notice of the accession to office, names titles, functions, and signatures of the persons
filling for the time being any public office in any State if the fact of their appointment to
such office is notified in the official Gazette. As such, officers of Government should not
be summoned merely to prove these facts.
C.L.No.40/X-d a-12 dated 2nd June, 1955

Original agreements respecting the accession of the former Indian states to the
Dominion of India and their merger or integration into new political units being
agreements made by the Government of the Dominion of India concerning the affairs of
State are acts of the Sovereign authority and are, therefore, public documents within
clause 1(i) of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They are printed in the ―White
paper on Indian States‖ a publication purporting to be printed by order of the Central
Government- which is admissible in proof of the documents under section 78(1) of the
Act. They can also be proved as provided in section 77 by the production of certified
copies granted under section 76. It should not, therefore, ordinarily be necessary for the
courts to require production of these original documents.

Issue of summons for the production of such original documents except in very
special circumstances should, therefore, be avoided.
(viii) Evidence after the report of the Amin
G.L.No. 2235/67-3 dated 17th August, 1918
The Privy Council in the case, Girish Chander Lahiri versus Shoshi Shikhareswar
Roy (ILR, XXVII, Cal. 951), deals with the discretion of the court in declining to take
evidence after the report of an Amin and appointment of Commissioners under rule 9,
Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure.