CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH

BIHAR

..A PROJECT ON
Facts which needs not be proved
Submitted to….. submitted by….

Dr. P.k das Gautam Kumar ranjan

Faculty of law and governance B.A.LL.B. (H)
4th Semester
Roll.No.- CUSB1613125018
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher (Dr.P.K.Das) who gave
me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the topic (FACTS WHICH NEEDS
NOT BE PROVED), which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and i came to know
about so many new things I am really thankful to them.
Secondly i would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing
this project within the limited time frame.

INTRODUCTION
 For establishing any fact in the court of law we need to prove that fact with the help of
witnesses through proper procedure as is mentioned in evidence act. Any fact which is so
notorious court takes Judicial notice of that fact. 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.1

Phipson 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.’’2

’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.

The Court shall take judicial notice of the following facts:—

(1) All laws in force in the territory of India;

(2) 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;

(3) 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;

(5) The accession and the sign manual of the Sovereign for the time being of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland;

(6) 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
1
The law of evidence , Batuk lal
2
Phipson Evidence
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;

(7) 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;

(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;

(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 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;

(13) 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.3

“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 therefore insists on formal proof , by evidence of notorious facts of history, past
or present. The date of poll, the passing away of man of eminence and events that have rocked

3
The law of evidence act 1872
the nation need no proof and are judicially noticed. Judicial notice, in such matters, takes the
place of proof and is of equal force. Infact, as a means of establishing notorious and widely
known facts it is superior to formal means of proof’’. Chief justice M.Monir. 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. 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, such as which day of the week corresponded to a particular calendar date or
the approximate time at sunset. However, it could even be used within one state to notice a law
of another state—such as one which provides average baselines for motor vehicle stopping
distances.

In this regard, the court in Hollard v Jones 4 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.”

In Commonwealth Shipping Representative v P and O Branch Services 5, 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. It can be argued therefore that 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.

4
1917 23 CLR 149
5
1923 AC 191
In Onkar Nath & Ors vs The Delhi Administration 6 on 15 February, 1977 The courts below
were justified in assuming without formal evidence that the railway strike was imminent on
May 5. 1974 and that a strike intended to paralyse the civic life of the nation was undertaken by
a section ofworkers on May 8, 1974. The purpose of s. 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 -roof
and are judicially noticed. judicial notice in such matters takes place of proof and is of equal
force. 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 therefore insists on formal proof, by evidence, of notorious facts of history, past or
present. The date of poll, the passing away of a man of eminence and events that have rocked the
nation need no proof and are judicially noticed. Judicial notice, in such matters, takes the 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. Accordingly, the Courts below were justified in
assuming, without formal evidence, that the Railway strike was imminent on May 5, 1974 and
that a strike intended to paralyse the civic life of the Nation was undertaken by a section of
workers on May 8, 1974.

In Debasish Kar Gupta And Anr. vs State Of West Bengal And Ors 7. on 19 July, 1999.By this
writ petition the petitioners herein being two guardians of their two respective wards, viz.,
Anewsha Kar Gupta and Rupsa Basu, have challenged the decision of the Managing Committee
of the secondary stream of Brahmo Balika Shikshalaya being the respondent No. 4 (hereinafter
referred to as the said school) and a notice of the Headmistress dated 13 August, 1998 of the
aforesaid stream for holding admission test of the wards of the petitioners. K.J.V. Sengupta, J,”. 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

6
AIR 1977 SC 1108
7
AIR 1999 Cal. 300
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.

SECTION 58: Facts admitted need not be proved. —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.8

Section 58 applies to admission in pleadings and not to evidentiary admissions(section 17 to

30).Admission in section 58 is conclusive and admission previously discussed i.e, evidentiary
admissions are only relevant.

Facts admitted by the parties or their agents need not be proved. Section 58 lays down that if the
parties to the proceeding or their agents agree to admit a fact at the hearing or which they agree
to admit by writing under their hands before hearing or which by any rule of pleading in force at
the time, they are deemed to have admitted by their pleading, it need not be proved. “They be
themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties.” Even implied admission
cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment of written statement. Admission is the
best evidence that can be relied upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless
successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous. Judicial admission means an admission made by a
party in a judicial proceeding relating to an opposing party’s assertion, or a failure to officially

8
The law of evidence, batuk lal
dispute an assertion. Generally, judicial admission is treated as an incontrovertible fact in the
remaining court proceedings. Further, it relieves the opposing party from having to prove the
admitted fact and bars the party who made the admission from disputing it. It is also called a
solemn admission, admission in judicio, or true admission. ‘pleadings’ means plaint or written
statement and an admission in pleadings means the admission of an averment by the opposite
party. But a denial, in general terms imposes on the plaintiff an specifically alleged by a party in
a plaint and are not denied by the other party, the party who fails to deny is deemed to have
admitted the facts, which are alleged in the plaint. Order VIII, Rule 5 of CPC says that every
allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implications should be
taken to be admitted except as against persons under disability. Facts admitted by a party in a
pleading are admissible against him without proof, but however, where he takes recourse to an
amendment made in the pleading, the party cannot be permitted to go beyond his admission. It is
interesting to note that in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. And another v.
Ladha Ram and Co., apex court opined that when an admission has been made in the pleadings,
even an amendment thereof would not be permitted.

According to Section 58 if the parties to a proceeding or their agents agree to admit, they are
deemed to have been admitted:

(a) At the hearing, or

(b) By writing before the hearing, or

(c) Which by any rule of pleading in force they are deemed to have admitted by the pleading,
need not be proved by the opposite party.

In Mahendra Munilal Nanavati v Sushila Nanavati 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. 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. A will which was neither registered
nor its alteration proved, was not allowed to be used in evidence even though it was admitted.
This section vests discretion in the court to require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise
than by such admission. Where a sub-tenant was kept by the tenant who admitted the fact, the
court held that a mere admission is not enough, some further proof should be insisted upon. It is
a settled law that the formal admission which was not contradicted is binding in subsequent
proceeding

In Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam alias Brijram, 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.”

In the backdrop of the decision in Nagindas Ramdas and Lohia Properties Pvt. Ltd., when the
decision, in Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Is carefully analyzed, there remains no
escape from the conclusion that when an implied admission, made in a written statement, is
binding on the party making the admission, such admission constitute waiver of proof and cannot
be allowed to be withdrawn by way of amendment of the written statement, particularly, when
the admission seeks to displace a plaintiff from the admission made by the defendant in his
written statement. A party having once denied cannot subsequently admit the fact. An admission
of fact on a particular ground is not binding in a other case. Admission made in affidavit unless
explained furnishes best evidence. It is well settled rule that admission made previously can be
allowed to be explained in order to know that it was erroneous. In criminal cases the rules of
evidence are that the prosecution is under duty to prove the case against the accused and that
they should not rely upon admission made by him in the course of the trial for convicting him.
An accused cannot be convicted upon the admission of his pleader. An admission by the accused
in answer to question put by the court under section 313, Cr. PC cannot be utilized to fill up a
gap in the evidence for the prosecution. Where a magistrate tries a warrant case as a summons
case, a conviction on accuser’s own admission without taking evidence and not framing charge,
will be set aside. A judge cannot supplement the evidence from the stock of his personal
knowledge was held in R (Giant’s Causeway etc. Tramway Co.) v/s Antrim justices ,
1895.Court can take judicial notice of constitutional matters e.g,the existence of title,flag etc.
According to Proviso the Court by its discretion requires some order evidence to support the
admitted facts. If the court is convinced that the admission was obtained by fraud, collusion or
there is suspicion about admission it may require the fact to be proved otherwise than by such
admission. In the matter of a petition for divorce by the husband on the ground of adultery of the
wife, the proviso will enable the court to insist on proof even when adultery is admitted.The
proviso to section 58 clearly gives discreation to court to require the facts admitted to be proved
otherwise than by such view of this, it is quite clear that the court at no stage can act blindly or
mechanically.Post mortem report filed by prosecution under section 294(1) of cr.p.c whose
geniuineness is not disputed( i.e, without proof of signature of the person by whom it purports to
be signed) may be read as substantive evidence. This section dispenses with proof of every
document when it becomes formal on its genuineness not being disputed.
CONCLUSION

As we know that for establishing any fact in the court of law we need to prove that fact with the
help of witnesses through proper procedure as is mentioned in evidence act. Any fact which is
so notorious court takes Judicial notice of that fact. 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. So the basic idea of
the judicial notice is to save the time of both court and party. In the section 57 there is mentioned
all the facts which is judicially noticeable by the court. And in the section 58 it discuss about the
facts which is admitted is not necessary to prove. But there is certain condition which is
mentioned in section 58.
BIBLLIOGRAPHY

Books:-

1. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, Updated 23 rd Enlarged

Edition covering , the criminal law (amendment) act, 2013, lexis nexis
2. BATUK LAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, Central law agency.
3. Dr. Avtar Singh , PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF THE EVIDENCE, Central law
agency.

Websites:-

www.wikipedia.com

https://indiankanoon.com