Important judgments on Cr.P.C Section 157-164

Important judgments on Cr.P.C Section 157-164

Important judgments on Cr.P.C Section 157-164

  1. No statutory bar to the informant-police officer for taking up the investigation- Cr.P.C. Section 157- State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu vs. V. Jayapaul- Date of decision 22.03.2004 –SC- Equivalent Citation- (2004) 5 SCC 223.
  2. Investigation can be started on information or otherwise means without FIR – Cr.P.C. Section 157 and PC Act- The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi– Equivalent Citation- AIR 1964 SC 2.
  3. Cr.P.C S.159 does not enable Magistrate to stop investigation-S.N. Sharma Vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Ors.– Equivalent Citation- AIR 1970 SC 786.
  4. Cr.P.C Section 159 gives limited power to Magistrate to direct investigates proceed himself but no power to stop investigation S.N. Sharma vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Ors.- Equivalent Citation- AIR1970 SC 786.
  5. Cr.P.C Section 159 Meant to give Magistrate the power of directing investigation where the police decide not to investigate the case under the proviso to Section 157(1)-S.N. Sharma Vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Ors.- Equivalent Citation-AIR 1970 SC 786.
  6. Omission to name accused when he was part of group is not fatal- Cr.P.C. Section 161 and 154- Ashok Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura – Equivalent Citation- (2014) 4 SCC 747.
  7. Statement on TV channel subsequent to charge sheet is not covered Bipin Panchal distinguished-Cr.P.C. Section 161 and 162 and Evidence Act Section 145-State of N.C.T. of Delhi Vs. Mukesh-Equivalent Citation- (2013) 2 SCC 58.
  8. Cr.P.C Section 161 and 164 Testimony of Investigation Officer and Special Judicial Magistrate cannot be disbelieved and discredited-Mahesh Janardhan Gonnade Vs. State of Maharashtra– Equivalent Citation-(2008) 13 SCC 271.
  9. Every omission is not contradiction- Cr.P.C. Section 161-Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura – Equivalent Citation- (2014) 4 SCC 747.
  10. Inadmissible portions in the panchana should be marked by the APP and excluded by the Judge and how to appreciate witnesses. Cr.P.C. Section 161- State of Gujarat Vs. Kathi Ramku Aligbhai– Equivalent Citation- 1986 CriLJ 239.
  11. Signature of witness does not render evidence inadmissible-Cr.P.C. Section 161- State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony – Equivalent Citation- AIR 1985 SC 48.
  12. Statement of witness need not be there in inquest panchanama- Cr.P.C. S.161-Nirpal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana– Equivalent Citation- AIR 1977 SC 1066.
  13. Cr.P.C Section 161 Statement reading over to witness does not make his evidence inadmissible- Gujarat High Court Full Bench-Nathu Manchhu Vs. The State of Gujarat -Equivalent Citation- 1978 CriLJ 448.
  14. Cr.P.C Section 161(3) Statement cannot be used-Md. Ankoos and Ors. Vs. The Public Prosecutor-High Court of A.P.-Equivalent Citation- AIR 2010 SC 566.
  15. In view of exception of Section 162(2) to Section 161, Statement of accused under Section 27 Evidence Act need not be signed by accused.- Cr.P.C. Section 161- Sunil Clifford Daniel Vs. State of Punjab – Equivalent Citation-(2012) 11 SCC 205.
  16. Magistrate can call case diary of another case-Cr.P.C. Section 162, 161 and 91 –State of Kerala Vs. Babu & Ors– Equivalent Citation- AIR 1999 SC 2161.
  17. P.C. Section 162 and 452 and Section 27 not barred for deciding custody of muddemal-Mr. Prakash Vernekar vs. State of Goa – Equivalent Citation- 2007 CriL J4649.
  18. Any confession made to a police officer in course of investigation whether a discovery is made or not is excluded-Cr.P.C. Section 162-Pakala Narayana Swami vs. Emperor – Equivalent Citation- AIR 1939 PC 47.
  19. Cr.P.C Section 162 Bar is not applicable in civil or other proceeding.-Khatri and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.- Equivalent Citation- AIR 1981 SC 1068.
  20. Cr.P.C Section 162 Contradictions and omissions-Tahsildar Singh and Anr. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh– Equivalent Citation- AIR 1959 SC 1012.
  21. Cr.P.C Section 162 covers statements to police during TIP- Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma Vs. The State of Bombay-Equivalent Citation- AIR 1955 SC 104.
  22. Cr.P.C Section 162 Statement of I.O. in the inquest what he saw is admissible-George & Ors vs. State Of Kerala– Equivalent Citation- (1998) 4 SCC 605.
  23. Directions to Police and Magistrates Cr.P.C. Section 164 and Section 30 Evidence Act Recording confession by other than jurisdiction Magistrate upheld-State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police Vs. Shivanna @  Tarkari Shivanna – Equivalent Citation-  2014 (3) BomCR (Cri) 98.
  24. Confession without signature of accused inadmissible- Cr.P.C. Section 164-Dhananjaya Reddy etc. vs. State of Karnataka– Equivalent Citation- AIR 2001 SC 1512.
  25. Signature of accused is mandatory on confession.-Cr.P.C. Section 164-Abdul Razak Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra– Date of decision 7 August 1987- Equivalent Citation-1987 MhLJ 863.
  26. Statement of victim girl should not be disclosed to any person till final report- Cr.P.C. Section 164- State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police Vs. Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna– Date of decision – Equivalent Citation- 2014 ALLMR (Cri) 4484 (2014) 8 SCC 913.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgments are posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printouts from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.

Also Read:-Important judgments on Cr.P.C Section 156(3)

Feel free to Share this

Bhupendra Sharma

"Bhupendra Sharma is a practicing lawyer at Rajasthan High Court who completed his graduation from the University of Rajasthan. He has pursued his LLM from Acharya Nagarjuna University. He is also a degree holder in Master of Education and Master of Business Administration."