Report No. 185
This section says that facts which are admitted need not be proved. It reads as follows:
"58. No fact need 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 or 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."
The section does not apply to criminal proceedings. The 69th Report stated in paras 23.6 and 23.9 that amendment need be made in Section 58 by adding the words "other than a criminal proceeding" after the words "in any proceeding".
As pointed out by Sarkar (ibid, page 1022), admissions for the purpose of trial may be considered as having been mad.-
(1) on the record which are
(a) actual, i.e. either on the pleadings (Order 8 Rule 5 CPC) or in answer to interrogation (Order 11 Rule 22).
(b) implied from the pleadings (Order 8 Rules 3, 4 and 5).
(2) between the partie.-
(a) by agreement in writing before the hearing,
(b) by notice (Order 12, Rules 1, 2, 4)
(3) at the hearing by party or his lawyer (Order 10).
All notices must be in writing (Section 142 CPC). The Court can even pass a decree on admissions as stated in Order 12 Rule 6.
If an admission is made, subject to any condition, it must be accepted subject to such condition or not accepted at all (Mota Bhoy v. Mulji 42 Ind. App. 103).
There can be an agreement admitting a fact subject to "just exception" (Chaplin v. Levy: 23 LJ Ex. 117).
If an admission is contained in a document not properly stamped, it is inadmissible under Section 35 of the Stamp Act unless deficiency or penalty is paid (except as to bills of exchange etc.).
Admissions of guilt are in certain instances not admissible in view of provisions contained in the Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (vide ss. 24-27 Evidence Act and section 162 CrPC)
Under Order 8 Rule 5(1) of the CPC, an allegation made by one party if not denied by the opposite party, is to be treated as an admission by implication but the legislature has, however, endeavoured to modify the rigour of the rule by adding a proviso to the Rule which exactly corresponds to the proviso to Section 58, where the Court is satisfied that an admission has been obtained by fraud, or that there is other good and sufficient cause, it will, in the exercise of the discretion given by the proviso require the fact to be proved otherwise than by such admission (Oriental Life Assurance Co.322 v. Narasinha ILR 25 Mad 205). In spite of failure of a defendant to deny a fact, a court may under the proviso insist on the plaintiff proving the fact. (Wenmanard Marak v. Smit Pirby Momin: AIR 1988 Gauhati 50 (SB) ; Biswanath v. Debi Prosad: AIR 1978 Cal. 533.
The above principles are laid down by the courts in various cases but it is not necessary to add anything to Section 58.
We agree with para 23.9 of the 69th Report to add the words "other than in a criminal prosecution", after the words "in any proceeding".