Important judgments on Cr.P.C Section 157-164
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Every omission is not contradiction- Cr.P.C. Section 161-Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma Vs. State of Tripura – Equivalent Citation- (2014) 4 SCC 747.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Cr.P.C Section 162 Contradictions and omissions-Tahsildar Singh and Anr. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh– Equivalent Citation- AIR 1959 SC 1012.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Confession without signature of accused inadmissible- Cr.P.C. Section 164-Dhananjaya Reddy etc. vs. State of Karnataka– Equivalent Citation- AIR 2001 SC 1512.
- 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.
- 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)