# When daily payment is made to a witness entries in Form no. 18 of the General - **Citation:** C.L.No.75/VIII - **Court:** Allahabad High Court - **Decided:** 1956-03-26 - **Case number:** C.L.No.75/VIII - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/when-daily-payment-is-made-to-a-witness-entries-in-form-no-18-of-the-general-163878 - **Pages:** 2 ## Text 464 C.L.No.75/VIII a-53 dated 27th November, 1948 When daily payment is made to a witness entries in Form no. 18 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1957,*** should be made on the date of his arrival (provided it be a date fixed for the hearing of the case), whether the case be or be not heard on the date of arrival. The entries relating to witnesses who attend court on several dates should not be made at one and the same place irrespective of the date on which they attend. The entries should, on the other hand, be made date-wise, but in order that the register may indicate at a glance whether a witness has or has not appeared in the same case on a previous date as well, subsequent entries relating to the same witness in column I should be made in red ink. C.E.No.88/VIIId-6 dated 25th August, 1970 All criminal courts working under the District Judges must invariably use Form nos. 18 and 19, General Rules (Criminal) for register of witnesses and payment order respectively. C.L.No.3/VIIIa-52 dated 6th January, 1966 According to provisions of rule 169 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1957* the register of witnesses should be maintained in Form no. 18 by the Reader or an official of the court and not by the Court Moharrir and the names of all the witnesses, whether examined or discharged without examination, should be entered therein irrespective of the payment of allowances and also without taking into consideration that it is police case or not. In the case of the witnesses to whom the court does not order expenses to be paid, a line is to be drawn through columns 12 to 20 of the register. It is also added that the drawal of expenses of the witnesses to be paid in police cases from the account of the police office and not the Court Nazir in accordance with the instructions contained in para 3 of the Government Order no. 916/O & M, dated March 26, 1956, does not warrant a deviation from the procedure indicated in the preceding paragraphs. (iv) Examination of witnesses C.L.No.179/VIII-h-2 dated 9th November, 1976 The presiding officers should see and ensure that while examining or cross examining a witness, the counsel should not stand in the vicinity of witness, but at a distance; and until witness boxes are constructed, the witnesses may be allowed to stand in the accused's box. G.L.No.2311/47-1(3) dated 6th August, 1919 The letter noted in the bloc calls attention to the way in which courts allow the cross-examination of a witness to be carried on to what may be termed ―scandalous length‖ and the inability or unwillingness of courts to disallow of their own motion, examination or cross-examination on irrelevant matters. The High Court fears that judicial officers do not sufficiently examine the record before they enter upon the *** NOTE: Now 1977 vide notication 504/Vb-13 dated 5.11.1983 * Note : Now 1977 vide notification 504/Vb-13 dated 5.11.1983 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.