You are on page 1of 20

EVIDENCE LAW

JUDICIAL NOTICE IN INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT


Submitted by
S.SYLVERSTER RAJ
BA0130068

Project Submitted to
Miss. Deepa
Associate Professor of Law

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL


(A State University established by Act No. 9 of 2012)
NavalurKuttapattu, Srirangam (TK), Tiruchirappalli – 620009.

MARCH 2016
March 2016
DECLARATION

I S.SYLVERSTER RAJ, hereby declare that this project work entitled “JUDICIAL NOTICE IN

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT” has been originally carried out by me under the guidance and

supervision of Miss. Deepa, Associate Professor of Law, Tamil Nadu National Law School,

Tiruchirappalli - 620 009. This work has not been submitted either in whole or in part of any

Degree / Diploma in this Institution or any other Institution/University.

Place : Tiruchirappalli
Date : 23-03-2016 (-----------------------------)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish the project with sheer
hard work and honesty. This research venture has been made possible due to the generous
co-operation of various persons. To list them all is not practicable, even to repay them in
words is beyond the domain of my lexicon.

May I observe the protocol to show my deep gratitude to the venerated Faculty-in-charge
Miss. Deepa, for her kind gesture in allotting me such a wonderful and elucidating research
topic. Apart from that I would like to thank my friends for their support and suggestions
during the process of making this project.
Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Concept of Judicial Notice

Chapter 3: Applicability of Judicial Notice under Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Chapter 4: Legal Implications & Hindrances of Judicial Notice

Chapter 5: Conclusion & Suggestions.

Bibliography
CHAPTER 1

Key Words: Appropriation, Judicial Notice, Section 57, Indian Evidence Act, List of
Facts, Relevancy of Facts, Aid to Judicial Notice.

Judicial Notice under Sec. 57 is the most important element under Indian Evidence Act.
The list of facts of which the Court shall take judicial notice and which are enumerated is
not exhaustive. The list of facts stated may be relevant or irrelevant to the case at hand.
The Supreme Court held that the Court can take judicial notice of circumstances in certain
parts of the country. If the Court is called upon by any person to take judicial notice of any
fact, it may refuse to do so unless and until such person produces any such book or
document as it may consider necessary to enable it to do so. The Section doesn’t appear
to have the effect of absolving the parties from any rules governing the proof of facts on
which they desire to rely. The Section doesn’t any say how any fact, historical or
otherwise; is to be proved by the parties, but gives the Court liberty to resort for its aid to
appropriate books or documents of reference on matters of public history. Thus, Judicial
Notice has no aid preceding or succeeding it.

In all these cases, and also on all matters of public history, literature, science or art, the
Court may resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents of references. The
appropriation depends and varies from case to case.

The researcher through this small piece of research aims to critically analyze and explore
the various nuances of Judicial Notice under S. 57 and its applicability in Indian Evidence
Act. Additionally, the researcher suggests various alternatives/remedies for amending the
said Section for its better and effective enforcement in the long run.

INTRODUCTION
Basically, legal notice way seizing cognizance of precise facts by the judiciary that it deems
it to be fit and vital reliant on the facts and conditions of every single case. Legal notice
gains far fame in cases whereas the gravity to clarify facts is far higher after to clarify or
refute or by not clarifying a case, etc. In this connection, the paper aims at critically
analyzing the assorted nuances of Legal notice in the light of selected cases and its
supplementary associated aspects.

CHAPTER 2
CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
Facts of that Court have to seize legal notice--- The Court shall seize legal notice of the
pursuing facts:

• All regulations in power in the region of India;

• All area Deeds bypassed or hereafter to be bypassed by Parliament [of the United
Kingdom], and all innate and confidential Deeds managed by Parliament [of the United
Kingdom] to be judicially noticed;

• Articles of Fight for [the Indian] Army, [Navy or Air Force]; The sequence of
enduring of Parliament of the United Kingdom, of the Constituent Encounter of India, of
Parliament and of the assemblies instituted below each regulation for the period being in
power in a Area or in the State;

• The accession and the signal manual of the Sovereign for the period being of the
United Crown of Outstanding Britain and Ireland;

• All seals of that English Courts seize legal notice: the seals of all the Courts in
[India], and all Courts out of [India] instituted by the power of [the Central Power or the
Crown Representative]: the seals of Courts of Admiralty and Nautical Power and of
Notaries Public, and all seals that each person is authorized to use by [the Constitution or
an Deed of Parliament of the United Crown or an] Deed or Regulation possessing the power
of regulation in India. The accession to workplace, terms, labels, purposes, and signatures
of the persons filling for the period being each area workplace in each State, if the fact of
their appointment to such workplace is notified in each Authorized Gazette;
• The attendance, label and nationwide ensign of every single State or Sovereign
understood by [the Power of India];

• The splits of period, the geographical splits of the globe, and area festivals, fasts and
celebrations notified in the Authorized Gazette;

• The regions below the dominion of [the Power of India];

• The commencement, continuance, and termination of fighting amid [the Power of


India] and each supplementary State or body of persons;

• The terms of the associates and captains of the Court and of their deputies and
subordinate captains and assistants, and additionally of all captains replacing in killing of
its procedure, and of all advocates, attorneys, proctors, vakils, pleaders and supplementary
persons authorized by regulation to materialize or deed beforehand it;

• The law of the road, [on earth or at sea]. In all these cases, and additionally on all
matters of area past, works, science or fine art, the Court could resort for its assistance to
appropriate books or documents of reference. If the Court is shouted on by each person to
seize legal notice of each fact, it could plummet to do so, unless and till such person
produces each such book or document as it could ponder vital to enable it to do so.

Generally, if a fact is unproven by each party to a suit or convict case, that party has to
furnish facts of the truthfulness of that fact to the court. Though, Indian Evidence Deed
permits the court to accord precise kinds of facts lacking each necessity to be proven by
each party. These kinds of facts are enumerated in Serving 56, 57, 58, and 114.
CHAPTER 3

APPLICABILITY OF JUDICIAL NOTICE UNDER IEA, 1872

Meaning of "Taking Legal Notice"--- It way credit of something as continuing or as being


real lacking possessing each proof. Legal notice is established on reasons of ease and
expediency. Precise things are so usually recognized that each ordinary person is cognizant
of it and it is a rubbish of period to pursue each facts for such things. For example, it is a
usually recognized fact that precise portions of MP, Bihar, and AP are naxalite altered or
that J&K is a horror stricken area. A court does not demand to expend period in looking
for its proof. Thus, legal notice is the cognizance seized by the court itself of precise matter
that are so notorious or clearly instituted that the facts of their attendance is unnecessary.
For example, in the case of Handling Group of Raja Sidheshwar Elevated School v. State
of Bihar , the court seized legal notice of the fact that education in the state was nearly
crumbled. In one more case, court seized legal notice of the fact that countless blind
persons have acquired outstanding intellectual distinction. If the court is shouted on by a
person to seize legal notice of a fact, it could plummet to do so unless and till such person
produces each such book or document as it could ponder vital to enable it to do so. The
frank necessity for seizing legal notice is that the fact has to be of a class that is so usually
as to give development to the belief that all persons are cognizant of it. Though, a judge
cannot hold his confidential vision into legal notice if that vision is not area knowledge.
Just because a judge knows something does not make it a thing of public knowledge.

A court does not work in ivory tower. It can seize cognizance of facts that are transpiring
all concerning it. Shutting legal eye to the attendance of such facts and matters is in a sense
an affront to public sense and should cut the legal procedure to a meaningless and
extravagant trial. No court consequently demand to assert on a proper facts of notorious
facts such as date of polls, bypassing away of an renowned person, or events that have
rocked the nation.
The doctrine of Legal Notice applies to the judges and juries. A catalog of facts remarked
in this serving is not exhaustive because the intention of the serving is to furnish that the
court shall seize legal notice of precise facts rather than exhaust the group of facts of that
the court in appropriate cases seize legal notice. The court shall seize notice lacking proper
facts of facts. The Court has inherent manipulation to seize legal notice of facts that
plummet inside kingdom of area knowledge.

CLAUSE (1): All regulations ill power in the region of India:

Law includes each regulation, ordinances, orders, bye-laws or regulations bypassed or


made by each competent assembly or power in the exercise of the delegated states of the
legislature. Regulation includes as described in Article 13(a) . Below this clause the court
ought to seize legal notice of all regulations prevalent in India. The court shall seize legal
notice merely of the Indian regulations not the external laws.

CLAUSE (2): All Deeds bypassed or to be bypassed by the Parliament of United Kingdom:

Under the clause the court shall seize legal notice of all Area Deeds bypassed or to be
bypassed by the British Parliament and all innate and Confidential Deed bypassed below
the association of the Parliament. Legal notice can be seized of the matter delineated the
prop of India’s white paper. The court can seize legal notice of Deeds of Parliament and
elucidate the design to the Deed in the light of English version.

CLAUSE (3): Articles of fight for the Indian Army, Armada or Air Force:

The courts shall seize legal notice of articles of fight for captains, solders etc. of the Indian
Army, Armada or Air Force.

CLAUSE (4): The sequence of enduring of parliament of the United Crown etc.:

The courts are attached to seize legal notice of the sequence of enduring of the British
Parliament; of the Legitimate Encounter of India; of Parliament and of the Assemblies in
the Areas or in the state. Legal notice can be seized of the matter delineated in the Power
of India’s white paper.
CLAUSE (5): Accession of United Kingdom:

Under the clause the court shall seize legal notice of the accession and the signal manual
of the sovereign for the period being of the United Crown of Outstanding Britain and
Ireland.

CLAUSE (6): Seals of that English courts seize legal notice:

The courts are attached to seize notice of all seals of that English Courts seize legal notice;
the seals of all the courts in India, and of all courts out of India instituted by the power of
the Central Power or the Crown representative, the seals of court of Admiralty and nautical
power and of Notaries Public, and all seals each person is authorized to use by the
Constitution or an Deed of Parliament of the United Crown or an Deed or Regulation
possessing the power of regulation in India.

CLAUSE (7): Legal notice of Gazetted Officer:

The courts shall seize legal notice of the appointments, terms, labels, purposes and
signatures of area captains if the appointment is notified in Authorized Gazette.

CLAUSE (8): Credit of label, nationwide ensigns etc. of External States:

The courts are attached to seize legal notice of attendance of label and nationwide ensign
of every single state or sovereign understood by the Power of India.

CLAUSE (9): Division of period etc.:

Under the clause the courts shall seize legal notice of the splits of period, the geographical
splits of the globe, and area festivals, facts and celebrations notified in Authorized Gazette.

CLAUSE (10): Regions of India:

The Courts shall seize legal notice of the regions below the dominion of Power of India.

CLAUSE (11): Hostilities:


The courts shall seize legal note of the commencement, continuance and termination of
fighting amid Power of India and each supplementary state or body of persons.

CLAUSE (12): Terms of associates and captains of courts:

Under the clause the courts shall seize legal notice of the captains of the court, their
subordinate captains and assistants, of procedure servers, of advocates, attorneys, proctors,
vakils and pleaders.

CLAUSE (13): Laws of the Land:

The courts shall seize legal notice of the law of the road on earth or at sea.

In supplement, Serving 57 has additionally endowed that on all matters of area past, works,
science or fine art, the court could resort for its assistance to appropriate books or
documents of reference. The Koran is believed to be a divine book by the followers of
Islam. Legal notice cannot be seized of the facts uttered in a news item being the nature of
hearsay secondary of facts, unless proved by facts aliened.

Section 57 has additionally endowed that if the court is shouted on by each person to seize
legal notice of facts denoted in this serving and on matters of area past etc., it could
plummet to do so unless and till such person produces each such book or document as basis
of data considering matters concerning that no facts has been given in the case. It is merely
afterward being shouted on to produce gazette notification of appointment; the person
distressed fails to produce the gazette subject that the court can plummet to seize legal
notice. Not possessing completed so it was not open to the court afterward close of
examination not to seize legal notice

CHAPTER 4
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS & HINDRANCES OF JUDICIAL NOTICE
Notorious facts:
Judicial notice is seized of assorted notorious facts for their universal notoriety. No court
insists on proper facts by facts of notorious facts of past, past or present. As a way of
instituting notorious and extensively recognized facts legal notice is superior to proper
proof.

The court is needed to seize legal notice of the proceedings of the two houses of Parliament
agreeing emergency and that the two announcements of Emergency were in power by
quality of the resolutions bypassed by the House of Parliament till they were duly revoked
by the two Announcements that were utilized by the Vice-president replacing as Head of
India in the year 1977.

Judicial notice could be seized of the extensive malice or unlawful immigration. The court
will discern the supply of vital commodities. It is customary in Central Power of India to
assist rice alongside “dal roti”. The court is additionally attached to seize notice of
consecutive events and mould relief.

Judicial Notice deals merely alongside legal notice of “adjudicative” facts. No law deals
alongside legal notice of “legislative” facts. Legal notice of matters of external regulation
is indulged in Law 44.1 of the Combined Laws of Political Procedure and Law 26.1 of the
Combined Laws of Convict Procedure.

The omission of each treatment of legislative facts aftermath from frank contrasts amid
adjudicative facts and legislative facts. Adjudicative facts are plainly the facts of the
particular case. Legislative facts, on the supplementary hand, are those that have relevance
to lawful reasoning and the lawmaking procedure, whether in the formulation of a lawful
principle or administrating by a judge or court or in the presentation of a legislative body.

The usual method of instituting adjudicative facts in across the introduction of facts,
ordinarily encompassing of the testimony of witnesses. If particular facts are beyond of
reasonable controversy, this procedure is dispensed alongside as unnecessary. A elevated
degree of indisputability is the vital prerequisite.

Legislative facts are quite different. As Lecturer Davis says:


“My opinion is that judge-made regulation should halt producing if judges, in thinking
concerning inquiries of regulation and strategy, were prohibited to seize into report the
facts they trust, as discriminated from facts that are ‘clearly inside the area of the
indisputable.’ Facts most demanded in thinking concerning tough setbacks of regulation
and strategy have a method of being beyond the area of the clearly indisputable.”

An illustration is Hawkins v. United States , in that the Court declined to discard the public
regulation law that one spouse might not testify opposing the supplementary, saying,
“Adverse testimony given in convict proceedings should, we contemplate, be probable to
obliterate nearly each marriage.” This conclusion has a colossal intermixture of fact, but
the factual aspect is scarcely “indisputable.” If the annihilative result of the providing of
adverse testimony by a spouse is not indisputable, ought to the Court have refrained from
pondering it in the nonexistence of upholding evidence?

“If the Ideal Program or the Uniform Laws had been applicable, the Court should have
been barred from thinking concerning the vital factual ingredient of the setbacks
beforehand it, and such a consequence should be certainly intolerable. What the regulation
needs as its producing points is extra, not less, legal thinking concerning the factual
ingredients of setbacks of what the regulation must to be, and the demanded facts are rarely
‘clearly’ indisputable. ”.

“Professor Morgan provided the pursuing description of the methodology of ascertaining


internal law:

“In ascertaining the content or applicability of a law of internal regulation, the judge is
unrestricted in his investigation and conclusion. He could refuse the propositions of
whichever party or of both parties. He could debate the origins of pertinent data to that they
denote, or he could plummet to do so. He could make an autonomous find for convincing
data or rest content alongside what he has or what the parties present. [T]he parties do no
extra than to assist; they manipulation no portion of the process.”
This is the think that ought to law legal admission to legislative facts. It renders improper
each limitation in the form of indisputability, each proper necessities of notice
supplementary than those by now inherent in affording opportunity to hear and be heard
and exchanging briefs, and each necessity of proper findings at each level. It ought to,
though, depart open the potential of familiarizing facts across usual channels in appropriate
situations., whereas the cause was remanded for the seizing of facts as to the commercial
conditions and transactions habits underlying the New York Milk Domination Law.

Similar considerations law the legal use of non-adjudicative facts in methods


supplementary than devising regulations and rules. Thayer delineated them as a portion of
the legal reasoning process.

“In leading a procedure of legal reasoning, as of supplementary reasoning, not a pace can
be seized lacking consenting something that has not been proved; and the capacity to do
this alongside competent judgment and efficiency, is imputed to judges and juries as
portion of their vital mental outfit.”

As Lecturer Davis points out, every single case involves the use of hundreds or thousands
of non-evidence facts. After a observer in an automobile mishap case says “car,” everyone,
judge and jury encompassed, furnishes, from non-evidence origins inside himself, the
supplementing data that the “car” is an automobile, not a railroad car, that it is self-
propelled, plausibly by an inner combustion engine, that it could be consented to have four
wheels alongside pneumatic rubber tires, and so on. The legal procedure cannot craft every
single case from graze, like Descartes crafting a globe established on the postulate Cogito,
ergo sum. These items might not perhaps be gave into facts, and no one suggests that they
be. Nor are they appropriate subjects for each formalized treatment of legal notice of facts.

Another aspect of what Thayer had in mind is the use of non-evidence facts to assess or
assess the adjudicative facts of the case. Pairs of cases from two jurisdictions illuminate
this use and additionally the difference amid non-evidence facts therefore utilized and
adjudicative facts. In People v. Strook , venue in Cook County had been grasped not
instituted by testimony that the offense was committed at 7956 South Chicago Avenue, as
legal notice should not be seized that the address was in Chicago. Though, the alike court
afterward administrated that venue in Cook County was instituted by testimony that a
offense transpired at 8900 South Anthony Avenue, as notice should be seized of the public
exercise of excluding the term of the metropolis after articulating of innate addresses, and
the observer was testifying in Chicago. People v. Pride, and in Hughes v. Vestal, , the
Dominant Court of North Carolina condemned the examination judge's admission in facts
of a state-published table of automobile halting distances on the basis of legal notice,
nevertheless the court itself had denoted to the alike table in an preceding case in a
“rhetorical and illustrative” method in ascertaining that the defendant might not have halted
her car in period to circumvent striking a youngster who unexpectedly materialized in the
freeway and that a non-suit was properly granted. Ennis v. Dupree . It is seeming that this
use of non-evidence facts in assessing the adjudicative facts of the case is not an appropriate
subject for a formalized legal notice treatment.

In think of these considerations, the regulation of legal notice of facts by the present law
extends merely to adjudicative facts.

What, next, are “adjudicative” facts? Davis mentions to them as those “which associate to
the parties,” or extra fully:

“When a court or an association finds facts considering the instant parties—who did what,
whereas, after, how, and alongside what motive or intent—the court or association is giving
an adjudicative purpose, and the facts are conveniently shouted adjudicative facts.

“Stated in supplementary words, the adjudicative facts are those to that the regulation is
requested in the procedure of adjudication. They are the facts that normally go to the jury
in a jury case. They associate to the parties, their hobbies, their properties, their
businesses.”
With respect to legal notice of adjudicative facts, the rehearse has been one of alert in
needing that the matter be beyond reasonable controversy. This rehearse of circumspection
appears to be soundly established, and no reason to depart from it is apparent.

The law proceeds on the theory that these considerations call for allocating alongside
established methods of facts merely in clear cases. Assess Lecturer Davis’ conclusion that
legal notice ought to be a matter of ease, subject to necessities of procedural fairness.

The phrase “propositions of generalized knowledge,” discovered in Uniform Law 9(1) and
(2) is not encompassed in the present rule. It was, it is trusted, primarily encompassed in
Ideal Program Laws 801 and 802 chiefly in order to afford a little minimum credit to the
right of the judge in his “legislative” capacity (not replacing as the trier of fact) to seize
legal notice of extremely manipulated groups of generalized knowledge. The limitations
therefore imposed have been discarded herein as unwanted, unworkable, and contrary to
continuing practice. What is left, next, to be believed, is the rank of a “proposition of
generalized knowledge” as an “adjudicative” fact to be noticed judicially and
communicated by the judge to the jury. Therefore believed, it is believed to be lacking
useful significance. As judges use legal notice of “propositions of generalized knowledge”
in a collection of situations: ascertaining the validity and meaning of statutes, devising
public regulation laws, selecting whether facts ought to be confessed, assessing the
sufficiency and result of facts, all are vitally non-adjudicative in nature. After legal notice
is perceived as a momentous vehicle for progress in the regulation, these are the spans
encompassed, chiefly in growing fields of logical knowledge. It is not trusted that judges
nowadays teach juries as to “propositions of generalized knowledge” derived from
cyclopedias or supplementary origins, or that they are probable to do so, or, indeed, that it
is desirable that they do so. There is a large difference amid administrating on the basis of
legal notice that radar facts of speed is admissible and clarifying to the jury its principles
and degree of accuracy, or amid employing a table of halting distances of automobiles at
assorted speeds in a legal evaluation of testimony and revealing the jury its precise request
in the case. For cases rising mistrust as to the propriety of the use of health texts by locale
triers of fact in bypassing on disability claims in official proceedings.

Under subdivision (c) the judge has a discretionary power to seize legal notice, even though
of whether he is so demanded by a party. The seizing of legal notice is needed, below
subdivision (d), merely after a party demands it and the vital data is supplied. This scheme
is trusted to imitate continuing practice. It is easy and workable. It avoids unruly
distinctions in the countless situations in that the procedure of seizing legal notice is not
understood as such.

Comparing Uniform Law 9 making legal notice of facts universally recognized needed
lacking appeal, and making legal notice of facts usually recognized in the power or capable
of determination by resort to precise origins discretionary in the nonexistence of appeal but
needed if appeal is made and the data furnished. But discern Uniform Law 10(3), that
directs the judge to plummet to seize legal notice if obtainable data fails to convince him
that the matter falls clearly inside Uniform Law 9 or is insufficient to enable him to notice
it judicially. Considerably the alike way is discovered in California Evidence Program Ss.
451–453 and in New Jersey Evidence Law 9. In difference, the present law treats
comparable all adjudicative facts that are subject to legal notice.

Basic considerations of procedural fairness demand an opportunity to be heard on the


propriety of seizing legal notice and the tenor of the matter noticed. The law needs the
conceding of that opportunity on request. No proper scheme of providing notice is
provided. An adversely altered party could discover in advance that legal notice is in
contemplation, whichever by quality of being assisted alongside a duplicate of a appeal by
one more party below subdivision (d) that legal notice be seized, or across an advance
indication by the judge. Or he could have no advance notice at all. The likelihood of the
last is enhanced by the recurrent wreck to understand legal notice as such. And in the
nonexistence of advance notice, a appeal made afterward the fact might not in fairness be
believed untimely.
In accord alongside the usual think, legal notice could be seized at each period of the
proceedings, whether in the examination court or on appeal. Far of the controversy
concerning legal notice has concentrated on the question whether facts ought to be
confessed in disproof of facts of that legal notice is taken.

The authors have been divided. The Ideal Program and the Uniform Laws are predicated
on indisputability of judicially noticed facts.

The proponents of confessing facts in disproof have pondered mainly on legislative facts.
As the present law deals merely alongside legal notice of adjudicative facts, arguments
managed to legislative facts lose their relevancy.

Within its moderately slim span of adjudicative facts, the law contemplates there is to be
no facts beforehand the jury in disproof. The judge instructs the jury to seize judicially
noticed facts as established. This locale is validated by the unwanted results of the opposite
law in manipulating the rebutting party, nevertheless not his antagonist, to admissible facts,
in conquering the reasons for legal notice, and in altering the substantive regulation to an
extent and in methods mainly unforeseeable. Ample protection and flexibility are afforded
by the colossal ability for opportunity to be heard on appeal, set forth in subdivision (e).

Authority on the propriety of seizing legal notice opposing an blamed in a convict case
alongside respect to matters supplementary than venue is moderately meager. Enduring on
the theory that the right of jury examination does not spread to matters that are beyond
reasonable argument, the law does not discriminate amid convict and political cases.
People v. Mayes,; Ross v. United States, State v. Main,; State v. Lawrence,.

Note on Legal Notice of Law. By laws competent July 1, 1966, the method of imploring
the regulation of a external state is obscured elsewhere. Law 44.1 of the Combined Laws
of Political Procedure; Law 26.1 of the Combined Laws of Convict Procedure. These two
new admirably projected laws are created on the assumption that the manner in that
regulation is fed into the legal procedure is not ever a proper concern of the laws of facts
but rather of the laws of procedure. The Advisory Group on Evidence, trusting that this
assumption is completely correct, proposes no facts law alongside respect to legal notice
of regulation, and suggests that those matters of regulation that, in supplement to foreign-
country regulation, have conventionally been indulged as needing pleading and facts and
extra presently as the subject of legal notice be left to the Laws of Political and Convict
Procedure.

NOTES OF COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, HOUSE REPORT NO. 93–650

Rule 201(g) as consented from the Dominant Court endowed that after legal notice of a
fact is seized, the court shall teach the jury to accord that fact as established. Being of the
think that needed education to a jury in a convict case to accord as conclusive each fact
judicially noticed is improper because contrary to the spirit of the Sixth Correction right to
a jury examination, the Group adopted the 1969 Advisory Group draft of this subsection,
permitting a needed education in political deeds and proceedings and a discretionary
education in convict cases.

COMMITTEE NOTES ON RULES—2011 AMENDMENT

The speech of Law 201 has been altered as portion of the restyling of the Evidence Laws
to make them extra facilely understood and to make style and terminology consistent across
the rules. These adjustments are aimed to be stylistic only. There is no intention to change
each consequence in each administrating on facts admissibility.

CONCLUSION & SUGGESTIONS:

Thus, it is hereby understood that Legal Notice is one of the quintessential agents of Indian
Evidence Deed lacking that it becomes tough for the Court of Regulation to clarify or to
refute a particular case at hand. The Deed clearly establishes the facts of criteria as to what
to seize cognizance and what not to seize cognizance of the facts. In this connection, legal
notice additionally deeds a checker in manipulating the act of judiciary not to unnecessarily
intervene supplementary than the matters required. So, in finality, it can be understood
that Sec, 57 gives the scope and limitation for the judiciary to purpose in its ambit lacking
infringing its freedom and liberty.

REFERENCES

ARTICLES

1. Burkhard Schafer and Stephen Mason, The characteristics of electronic evidence


in digital format, in Electronic Evidence, Edited by Stephen Mason, LexisNexis,
2013.

2. George R. S. Weir and Stephen Mason, The source of Digital Evidence, in


Electronic Evidence, Edited by Stephen Mason, LexisNexis, 2013.

3. Manish T. Karia and Tejas D. Karia, India, in Electronic Evidence, Edited by


Stephen Mason, LexisNexis, 2013.

4. Eoghan Casey, Digital Evidence and Computer Crime: Forensic Science, Computers and
the Internet, Academic Press, 2004.

5. Justice P. SATHASIVAM, Appreciation of Evidence including Evidence recorded through


Electronic Media for Sessions Cases.

6. Digital Evidence–Technical Issues by Satish Kumar,

7. Electronic evidence and its challenges By Dr. Swarupa Dholam.

You might also like