Law

Judicial Notice under the Indian Evidence Act

Meaning of Judicial Notice:

Judicial Notice means notice or recognition of the truth of the facts taken by the judge, which do not require proof of any evidence.

These facts are well known. The notice takes the place of proof and is of equal force. As a means of establishing facts, it is, therefore, the best evidence.

Definition of Judicial Notice

Stephen defines Judicial Notice as,

“That some facts are so notorious in them or stated authentically is well-known and accessible publications that they require no proof.”

Facts which can be taken by the court as a Judicial Notice

Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act : Facts judicially noticeable do not need to be proven.

Whichever fact the court takes as judicial notice does not need to be proven.

Some facts are not required to prove as the court itself will take judicial notice of them if they are relevant.

In Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., the Supreme Court held that the court can take judicial notice from alternative sources.

Section 57

Facts of which court must take judicial notice

The court shall take judicial notice of the following facts:

1. All laws in force in the territory of India; the expression All laws includes statutory law as well as unwritten law whether of personal or of local nature.
2. All acts of the Parliament of the UK whether they’re local or personal will be judicial notice. In Nityanand Sharma v. the State of Bihar, the court held that when the Hindi version of Act contains a wrong entry in the schedule of the Act, then the Supreme Court will take judicial notice of the English version as an authoritative text of the Act.
3. Articles of War for the Indian Navy, Force or Army.
4. The proceedings of the parliament of UK, Constituent Assembly of India, Parliament of India and legislatures established under any law in force in India.
5.  The accession and the sign manual of the sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland can be taken as judicial notice.
6. All seals of English Courts, Indian courts within or outside India established by the authority of the Central Government or the Crown Representative, Admiralty court and Maritime Jurisdiction and Notaries Public, and all seals which any person is authorized to use by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or an Act or Regulation having the force of law in India;
7.   The judicial notice for the acquisition of office, name, title, function and signature of Gazette office can be taken under this clause. In Kali Pada Upadhya v. King-Emperor, it was held that signatures of the Secretaries of the Government on any instrument can be under this clause.
8. The existence, title and national flag of every State or Sovereign recognized by the Government of India;
9. The divisions of time, the geographical divisions of the world, and public festivals, fasts and holidays notified in the Official Gazette. In Balwan v. State, an incident took place at 7 am in April; the court held that it could take judicial notice of the fact that it was not dark at that time.
10.  The territories under the dominion of the Government of India;
11.  The commencement, continuance, and termination of hostilities between the Government of India and any other State or body of persons; 
12.  The names of court officials and all advocates, etc. authorized by law to appear or act before the court; 
13.  The rule of the road, on land or at sea. 

Section 58

Facts admitted do not need to be proven

1. Facts which the parties to proceedings or agents agree to admit facts at the hearing or,
2. Which they agree to provide by writing before the hearing or,
3. Which by any rule of pleading,
4.  They are to give their pleadings it does not require to be proved by the opposite party.

In Naseem Bano v. State of Uttar Pradesh, advertisements made in a petition are not controverted by the respondent to carry the effect of being admitted.

Admissions made by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs in his written statement in earlier judicial proceedings were held relevant against the plaintiffs. The right to the suit property was lost due to adverse possession and also perfected by proceedings.

For more information Visit Our Site

To submit your work : Call for Blog