Recording of statements u/s 164 of crpc without satisfactory identification of witness/complainant by Magistrate is impermissible

Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406

S. 164 - Recording of statements by Magistrates - Recording of statements without satisfactory identification of
witness/complainant - Impermissibility of - Held, Magistrate cannot record statements under S. 164 without satisfactory
identification of such person - When statements are recorded without proper identification then such statements lose their
sanctity, 


Ss. 209, 190, 207, 208, 227, 228, 235, 239, 240, 248 and 343 - Offence exclusively triable by Sessions Court - Powers
and duties of Magistrate in committal proceedings - Cognizance - Circumstances for consideration of defence evidence -
Refusal of Magistrate to take cognizance and consequent discharge/acquittal of accused relying upon evidence led by
accused without even committing case to Sessions Court - Sustainability - Held, scheme of CrPC, 1973, and particularly
a conjoint reading of Ss. 207 to 209 CrPC makes it crystal clear that committal of a case exclusively triable by Court of
Session, in a case instituted by police is mandatory - Scheme of CrPC, 1973 simply provides that Magistrate can
determine whether facts stated in report (prima facie) make out offence triable exclusively by Court of Session - Once
Magistrate reaches conclusion that facts alleged in report make out offence triable exclusively by Court of Session,
Magistrate must commit case to Sessions Court - Restoration of proceedings in present case, upheld - Sessions Court to
which case had been committed directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law, 
Ss. 209, 207, 208, 164(1), 190(1), 173(2) and 169 - Offence exclusively triable by Sessions Court - Magistrate refusing
to take cognizance of offence and acquitting accused by relying on statement of prosecutrix incorrectly recorded under S.
164 - Reversal of such discharge/acquittal by Sessions Court and High Court, and restoration of proceedings, confirmed -
Sessions Court to which case had been committed directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law, 
Ss. 190(1), 203, 204 and 173(2) - Refusal to take cognizance and dropping of proceedings against accused -
Prerequisites to be complied with - Held, when Magistrate decides to not to take cognizance of case and to drop
proceedings against accused, it is mandatory to hear complainant or informant by issuing him notice, 
S. 164 - Recording of statements by Magistrates - Recording of statements without satisfactory identification of
witness/complainant - Impermissibility of - Held, Magistrate cannot record statements under S. 164 without satisfactory
identification of such person - When statements are recorded without proper identification then such statements lose their
sanctity,
S. 227 - Phrase hearing the submissions of the accused" - Meaning of - Held, it means that hearing the accused on
record of case as filed by prosecution and on documents submitted therewith and nothing more, 
Evidence Act, 1872
Ss. 47, 73 and 45 - Comparison of handwriting and signatures - Power of, and approach to be followed by courts - Held,
court can compare writing sample given in its presence or admitted or proved to be writing of the person concerned and
there is no legal bar on court for comparing handwriting or signature using its own eyes and it can make its own

observations thereto - If situation so demands, court can take upon itself the task of comparison of signatures without
sending for expert's report - Though expert's report could be fallible but it cannot be brushed aside as useless - However,
cautioned, when court is comparing handwriting or signatures it cannot become expert and it must refrain from playing
role of expert as opinion of court may not be conclusive - Therefore court should be slow and hesitant to base its findings
only on comparisons made by it, 
Evidence Act, 1872
S. 45 - Expert opinion - Non-availability of - Duty of court - Held, when no expert opinion is available to court for
assistance then court should seek guidance from authoritative textbook and use its own experience and knowledge - In
absence of expert opinion, court should discharge its duty with or without expert or with or without any other evidence,

Print Page