LEX NON REQUIRIT VERIFICARI QUOD APPARET CURIAE By:- Sushma Gowda

Literal meaning:– The law does not know to require that to be proved which is apparent to the court

Origin:- Lex means a body of law, non means not, requirit means required,  verificari means verify, quod means by, apparet means appeared, curiae means court.

Explanation:- “Lex non requirit verificari quod apparet curiae”. The law does not require proof of that which is apparent to the court. If there is difficulty in determining whether there has been an erasure, the court may order a proof; but if the erasure is apparent, no proof is necessary.

Illustration:- The law does not require proof of the obvious.

Case Reference:-

However in the case “A.K. Saxena vs Union Of India” the cited case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) would also not inure any benefit to the applicant before us, because in Para-23 of the said Apex Court judgment, it has been clearly mentioned that a decision regarding the guilt of a delinquent official must be made on the basis of some evidence, which is legally permissible. Therefore, when once the applicant was confronted with some evidence, which was fully admissible as proper and sufficient evidence in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings under the provisions of Section-36A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the applicant cannot be allowed to derive any benefit from the judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra). We would rather go by the Latin Maxim Lex non requirit verificari quod apparet curiae- that the law does not require that to be proved which is apparent to the Court.

We also see that the cited case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) would also not inure any benefit to the applicant before us, because in Para-23 of the said Apex Court judgment, it has been clearly mentioned that a decision regarding the guilt of a delinquent official must be made on the basis of some evidence, which is legally permissible. Therefore, when once the applicant was confronted with some evidence, which was fully admissible as proper and sufficient evidence in all judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings under the provisions of Section-36A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the applicant cannot be allowed to derive any benefit from the judgment in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra). We would rather go by the Latin Maxim Lex non requirit verificari quod apparent curiae- that the law does not require that to be proved which is apparent to the Court.

Reference:-

Hamilton v.lindsay-bucknall, 8 macp. 323