# 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-163920
- **Pages:** 2

## 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.
476
(ix)
Non compliance of the provisions of Rules in regard to recoding of evidence
in Civil and Criminal Cases by the Presiding Officers of the Subordinate
Courts.
C.L. No. 38 Dated: 12.10.2004

In continuation of Court's Circular Letter No. 138/IV-f-46 dated 7th September,
1974 Circular Letter No. 44/IV-h-36 dated 8th March, 1977 and Circular Letter
No.33/IVf-46/84 dated 8th May, 1984 on the above subject, I am directed to say that it has
been brought to the notice of the Court that 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 statements by the Reader/Ahalmed while Presiding Officer keeps himself
busy in other matters. Upon consideration of the matter, the Hon'ble Court has taken this
lapse very seriously and has desired that the compliance of the directions as contained in
the aforementioned circular letters be now ensured.

I am', therefore, directed to request you kindly to draw the attention of all Judicial
Officers working under your administrative control and they be required to ensure strict
compliance of the rules and provision of law while recoding evidence in civil and
criminal cases, faithfully and punctually.
19.
JUDGMENTS
(i)
Recording and pronouncement
G.L.No. 14 dated 22nd December, 1904
In miscellaneous proceedings as well as in suits and appeals, judgment must not
only be pronounced in open court, but also dated and signed in open court at the time
when it is pronounced and before the decree or order in pursuance of such judgments is
drawn up.
G.L.No.48/N-32 dated 17th December, 1931
Judges should rise for writing or dictating judgments in chambers during court
hours only in special cases of which note must be made on the time sheet. A judge
should, however, preferably retire for preparing judgments in chambers when he has risen
from the court for the day. The Bar and the litigants in that case will not be
inconvenienced and will know that the judge does not mean to return to courtroom and
resume work.
General D.O.No.4565 dated 7th September, 1943

There can be no objection on principle to a judge, who has light work, dictating
judgments in chambers during court hours, but as a rule it is only in judgeships where
there are no arrears and where no additional help is required that such a practice is
justifiable. If the work warrants it, and in most districts the work does warrant it, each
judicial officer should put in up to seven hours work each day-five in court, and, if
necessary, two out of court and long judgments should as a rule be done out of court
hours. The case diary should be drawn up on this assumption.