Law and You >Procedural Laws > Indian Evidence Act, 1872 > Facts Which Need Not be Proved
According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. Thus, where the court believes the facts shown by a party, in any proceeding exist or when it is convinced that a reasonable person would see them as existing, the fact is said to be proved. Similarly, a fact is said to be disproved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist, or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. What is disproved is normally said to be false thing. Similarly, a fact is said not to be proved when it is neither proved nor disproved. Thus, for establishing any fact in the court of law we need to prove or to disprove that fact with the help of witnesses through proper procedure as is mentioned in evidence act. But there are certain facts mentioned in the Indian Evidence Act, of which a judicial notice is to be taken. Chapter III of Indian Evidence Act deals with facts which need not be proved. Section 56, Section 57 (both sections to be read together) and Section 58 deal with judicial notice or the facts which need not to be proved.
Fact Judicially Noticeable Need not be Proved (S. 56 of IEA):
According to Section 56 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872 no fact of which the Court will take judicial notice need to be proved.
Under the rules of evidence in many jurisdictions, certain facts are considered “judicially noticeable,” meaning that the court can accept them as true without requiring formal proof. These are facts that are so well-known or widely accepted that they do not need to be proved anew in each individual case. Judicial notice can be taken of both law and facts. Section 57 IEA gives list of facts which are judicially noticeable.
A Judicial notice occurs when a trial court accepts a fact as true without requiring either party to introduce evidence supporting the noticed fact. Judicial notice is generally intended to save the parties, the court and the jury the time and effort associated with proving facts that are a matter of common knowledge. The party opposing the judicial notice should be given an opportunity to present evidence disputing the noticed fact. Moreover, in a criminal case, judicial notice cannot pre-empt the jury’s authority to make its own factual findings. Phipson on Evidence in 14th edition quotes, “Judicial notice is the cognizance taken by the court itself for certain matters which are so notorious or clearly established that evidence of their existence is deemed unnecessary.’’ Thus, the doctrine of judicial notice binds courts to accept certain facts before it without need to have the same proved by the parties in evidence. This doctrine is further said to be the law’s oldest doctrine and that it trace its origin from the common law tradition though some civil jurisdictions have adopted it.
Courts usually consider factors such as the notoriety of the fact, whether it can be accurately and readily determined, and whether it is the type of fact that is appropriate for judicial notice.
In Commonwealth Shipping Representative v. P & O Branch Services, [1923] AC 191 at 212 case, Lord Sumner defined judicial notice as to refer facts which a judge can be called upon to receive and act upon either from his general knowledge of them, or from inquiries to be made by himself for his own information from sources to which it is proper for him to refer.
In Hollard v Jones, [1917] 23 CLR 149 case, the Court held that the doctrine of judicial notice is based on the common law and its main concern is that whenever a fact is generally known that every ordinary person may reasonably presumed to be aware of it, the court “notices” it, either simpliciter or if it is at once satisfied of the fact without more, or after such information and investigation as it considers reliable and necessary to consider eliminate any reasonable doubt.
Facts of Which Court Must Take Judicial Notice (S. 57 of IEA)
It is mandatory to take judicial notice of facts which is mentioned in list of section 57 but discretion lies with court to take judicial notice of any fact which is not mentioned in list of section 57 which differs from case to case. According to Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the Court shall take judicial notice of the following facts:
- All laws in force in the territory of India;
- All public Acts passed or hereafter to be passed by Parliament of the United Kingdom, and all local and personal Acts directed by Parliament of the United Kingdom to be judicially noticed;
- Articles of War for the Indian Army, Navy or Air Force;
- The course of proceeding of Parliament of the United Kingdom, of the Constituent Assembly of India, of Parliament and of the legislatures established under any law for the time being in force in a Province or in the State;
- The accession and the sign manual of the Sovereign for the time being of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland;
- All seals of which English Courts take judicial notice: the seals of all the Courts in India, and all Courts out of India established by the authority of the Central Government or the Crown Representative: the seals of Courts of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction and of 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;
- 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 any Official Gazette;
- The existence, title and national flag of every State or Sovereign recognized by the Government of India;
- The divisions of time, the geographical divisions of the world, and public festivals, fasts and holidays notified in the Official Gazette;
- The territories under the dominion of the Government of India;
- The commencement, continuance, and termination of hostilities between the Government of India and any other State or body of persons;
- The names of the members and officers of the Court and of their deputies and subordinate officers and assistants, and also of all officers acting in execution of its process, and of all advocates, attorneys, proctors, vakils, pleaders and other persons authorized by law to appear or act before it;
- The rule of the road, on land or at sea 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 reference. 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.
However, matters enumerated in Section 57 do not form an exhaustive list. The court could take judicial notice of other facts not to be found in the list.
In Nitya Nand v. S.G.P.C. Amritsar, 1992(1) RCR 406 (P&H) (DB) case, the Court held that under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, the Court may presume that any book to which it refers for information on matters of public or general interest was written and place, by whom or at which it purports to have been written on published. In questions of public history, the Court can only dispense with evidence of notorious or undisputed facts. But before any judicial notice could be taken of any passage in books relating to the alleged tradition something more than the mere existence of the passages would have to be proved before the passages could be regarded as evidence of the existence of the tradition. It must be shown that the writer had any special knowledge of the alleged tradition, or that the tradition is a repetition of that given in the history.
In Debasish Kar Gupta v. State of West Bengal AIR 1999 Cal 300 case, Sengupta, J, observed: “I can take judicial notice that the State Government alone cannot make effective measure for imparting education to the children of this country. Section 57, it could only take such notice if unimpeachable books or documents are put before it or are otherwise accessible for its reference. Under the last paragraph of the section the Court is given the discretion to refuse to take judicial notice of any fact unless such person calling upon the Court to take judicial notice of such fact produces any such book or document as it may be necessary to enable it to do so. In this case no such book or document was placed before the lower Court for its reference to enable it to satisfy itself that such order or notification was in existence. In its discretion the lower Court refused to take judicial notice as not then the orders nor the documents showing the publication of such orders were placed before it. It is therefore impossible to say that the discretion exercised by the lower Court is either perverse or illegal. In the result all the appeals were dismissed.
In Onkar Nath v. The Delhi Administration, AIR 1977 SC 1108 case, the Court observed: “The purpose of Section 57 of the Evidence Act is to provide that the court shall take judicial notice of certain facts rather than exhaust the category of facts of which the court may in appropriate cases take judicial notice. Recognition of facts without formal proof is an act of expediency. Shutting the judicial eye to the existence of such facts and matters is in a sense an insult to commonsense and would tend to reduce the judicial process to a meaningless and wasteful ritual. No court insists on a formal proof by evidence of notorious facts of history–past or present and events that have rocked the nation need no proof and are judicially noticed. Judicial notice in such matters takes place of proof and is of equal force. In fact, as a means of establishing notorious and widely known facts it is superior to formal means of proof.
Facts Admitted Need Not be Proved (S. 58 of IEA):
According to Section 58 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872 no fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.
Then Section 58 of the lays down that if parties to a proceeding or their agents agree to admit a fact at the hearing or which they agree to admit by writing before the hearing, or which by any rule of pleading in force they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings, it need not be proved by the opposite party.
This Section lays down a principle that, what is admitted need not be proved. The Court has to try the questions on which the parties are at issue, not those on which they have agreed. These Admissions are said to be formal admission or judicial admissions has given during trial, either at or before the hearing.
Section 58 classifies the judicial admissions, which require no proof into the following:
- facts which parties or their agents agree to admit at the hearing.
- facts which before the hearing they agree to admit in writing.
- facts which they are deemed, to have admitted by rules of pleadings.
According to Order VIII of the CPC, if an admission is made in the plaint, then no fact can be adduced as a fact in accordance with section 58.
In a civil case, an adversary may at any time relieve his adversary of the necessity of proof. Admission in civil cases may be accepted or rejected as a whole. Attempt to resile from admission by way of an amendment is not punishable.
In criminal cases, the rules of evidence are subject to the general principles of jurisprudence that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case against the accused and that they should not rely upon admissions made by him in the course of the trial for convicting him
In Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin, (2012) 8 SCC 148 case, the Court held that admission of fact must be during trial, before or at the hearing procedure under Order 12 CPC must also be followed.
In Mahendra Munilal Nanavati v Sushila Nanavati, AIR 1965 SC 364 case, the Supreme Court held that there was no good reason for the view that the court cannot act on admissions of the parties in proceeding under the Act.
In Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram, AIR 1974 SC 471 case, for a three judge bench of the apex court has held, “……. Admissions, if true and clear are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under section 58 of the evidence act, made by the parties or their agent at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions is fully binding on the party that makes them and constitutes a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand, evidentiary admissions, which are receivable at the trial as evidence, are by themselves, not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong.”
Conclusion:
Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known, or so authoritatively attested, that it cannot reasonably be doubted. Courts usually consider factors such as the notoriety of the fact, whether it can be accurately and readily determined, and whether it is the type of fact that is appropriate for judicial notice. This is done upon the request of the party seeking to rely on the fact at issue. Facts and materials admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence, and they are even admitted if one party wishes to lead evidence to the contrary. Judicial notice is frequently used for the simplest, most obvious common-sense facts. However, it could even be used within one state to notice a law of another state. Court taking judicial notice is different in civil and criminal trials.
For More Articles on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Click Here