Supreme Court: Under which circumstances Non-collection of tower location of the two mobiles is a serious investigational lapse?

 Lapse in collecting tower location of mobile(s) while

obtaining CDR

51. During investigation, the investigating officer was

apprised of mobile numbers of the deceased Mithilesh

Kumari (D-1) and the accused respondent. PW-19 was

produced to prove the CDR of one of the mobiles, though

both CDRs were part of police papers collected during

investigation. However, interestingly, the CDRs do not

disclose tower location of the concerned mobiles which

could have helped in pin-pointing as to whether the two

mobiles at the relevant time were in close proximity of each

other, and whether D-1’s mobile had moved to the place of

residence of the accused from where it was allegedly

recovered. Non-collection of tower location of the two

mobiles is a serious investigational lapse in the facts of the

case.

52. Further, strangely, the CDR of D-1’s mobile was

not even exhibited. Interestingly, PW-20 (i.e., the

investigating officer) does not even disclose whether D-1’s

mobile was operative or not after 31.08.2011 as per its

CDR.

53. In our view, CDRs of the two mobiles with corresponding tower locations would have been critical in revealing:

a. whether the accused’s mobile at the relevant

time was near the location where the dead

bodies of the two deceased were found; and

b. whether D-1’s mobile was active any time

after 31.08.2011; if yes, whether she received

any call after 31.08.2011; if yes, from what

location.

54. The importance of clarity on the aforesaid

questions cannot be undermined as they had the potential

to either corroborate or demolish the prosecution story.

Because if the mobile of the deceased was operative after

31.08.2011, PW-1’s statement that it was found switched

off would have been negated. Besides, its tower location

would have indicated where the person in possession of that

mobile was located. This was crucial because the

prosecution story hinges on the circumstance that the

deceased and the accused were together on 31.08.2011.

Therefore, if the tower location of the two mobiles had

disclosed that they were not in close proximity to each other

on the fateful day, some explanation would have been

required as to why it was so, when, according to the

prosecution, owners of those two mobiles were together on

the fateful day. Assuming that the accused may not have

carried her mobile to the scene of crime, tower location of

D-1’s mobile could have reflected upon the truth of the

prosecution story. Here there is no explanation by the

prosecution as to why the tower location was not collected.

In our view, lack of information in that regard is a serious

investigational lapse.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 166 of 2019

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VsANCHLA @ CHANCHLA

Author: MANOJ MISRA, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1074

Dated: October 01, 2026.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Investigating Officer Must Not Create Evidence' : Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal After Finding Witnesses Were 'Set Up'

 To a lay man, the above circumstances may appear

irrelevant in assessing credibility/ trustworthiness of a

witness. But to a trained judicial mind it is an important

circumstance in assessing whether a person is a natural

witness, who is aware of relevant facts, or is the one who

has been set up to create evidence. Normally, when a person

is aware about a crime and has knowledge of any

circumstance which, to his understanding, is incriminating

in nature and may be of help to the police, he may, as a

responsible person of the society, provide information to the

police. But where the circumstance, of which one has

knowledge or awareness, in itself is not one which could be

considered incriminating or relevant for investigation of a

crime, there is no likelihood of that person reporting it to

the police. Therefore, the answer to the question as to why,

when and in what circumstances the witness statement

was recorded during investigation becomes an important

tool in assessing the credibility of that witness. The reason

is simple. Because the answer would help in determining

whether the witness is a natural one or has been set up to

create evidence. {Para 41}

42. It is well settled that the role of the investigating

officer is to collect evidence and not to create one. Where

there is no occasion for the investigating officer to record

statement of a person, or for that person to impart

information to the police, yet, the police proceeds to record

his statement without narrating the circumstance in which

it was considered necessary to record his statement, a

serious doubt arises as to whether that witness has been

set up to create evidence.

43. We have no doubt in our mind that an investigating

officer may pick up clues from any statement recorded

during investigation to record statement of another. Such

an exercise is completely bona fide. For example, if after

recording statement of A, the investigating officer comes to

know that B may have knowledge of something relevant, he

would be justified in recording statement of B. But if the

investigating officer straightway records statement of B,

and there is no palpable reason for him to believe that B is

possessed of relevant information, and B has no reason to

impart information on his own to the investigating officer, a

suspicion would arise whether the exercise of recording

statement of B is undertaken just to create evidence. Lack

of explanation in that regard may dent the credibility of B.

44. Ordinarily an investigating officer collects evidence

from witnesses who are either present at the scene of crime

or are likely to be aware of the crime and have information

about it. Evidence may also be collected from persons who,

by virtue of their relationship with the victim or the named

accused, are likely to have relevant information.

Investigation may also reach out to those who may be in

contact with the victim, or the known accused, based on

Call Detail Record (CDR) of the mobile of the victim or the

suspects. Likewise, information may be collected on the

basis of information received through disclosure statement

suffered by the accused. However, where a person is not

even aware that the information which he is possessed of is

incriminating against some person, there is no likelihood of

that person reporting that information to the police. In such

circumstances, what propels the investigating officer to

record his statement becomes important, and failure to

disclose the reason may dent the credibility of that witness

as it may reasonably be inferred that the said witness is one

who has been set up.

45. In the present case, PW-20 i.e., the investigating

officer ducks the question and feigns ignorance as to when

he recorded the statement of PW-4 and PW-18 during

investigation. Further, there is no explanation as to what

prompted him to record statements of PW-4 and PW-18

during investigation. Importantly, PW-20 does not state

that in her disclosure statement the accused had disclosed

about travelling by Taxi from Chamba to Diur and back or

about her stay at the hotel. PW-20 only states that the

accused in her disclosure had stated that she could get the

keys and mobile recovered. Thus, statements of PW-4 and

PW-18 appear to have been recorded only to create

evidence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 166 of 2019

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VsANCHLA @ CHANCHLA

Author: MANOJ MISRA, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 1074

Dated: October 01, 2026

Print Page

Bombay HC: If investigating officer fails to produce record of hospitals where injured were first taken, the court must draw adverse inference against prosecution

 Evidence is given by Satish (PW 1) and Ashrubai (PW 2) that deceased was first shifted to Washi Government Hospital. From there, he was shifted to Osmanabad Civil Hospital and then to Civil Hospital, Solapur. Though in the night time itself deceased was reached to Civil Hospital Solapur, the fact remains that the deceased was first taken to two Government Hospitals and there some record must have been created about the injuries sustained by the deceased and about the history given. In view of the nature of injury, the case must have been treated as medico legal case. No such record was collected by the investigating agency. There is only transfer certificate issued by Osmanabad Hospital to shift the deceased to Civil Hospital, Solapur. In the history of Solapur Hospital, there is a mention that it was M.L.C. In view of these circumstances and in view of the circumstance that much delay was caused in giving the F.I.R. by Satish (PW 1), it was necessary for investigating agency to collect the record from aforesaid two hospitals. Absence of such record shows that investigating agency was not fair. There is clear probability that the history, which is not suitable to prosecution case was given and such inference can be drawn due to such lacuna. {Para 15}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2018

Decided On: 03.10.2018

Umesh Bharat Gaikwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.V. Nalawade and Vibha Kankanwadi, JJ.

Author: T.V. Nalawade, J.

Citation: 2019 ALL M R (Cri) 2302, MANU/MH/2823/2018.

Print Page

Supreme Court: How to appreciate evidence if investigating officer fails to investigate complaint of accused that he was falsely implicated due to political rivalry?

 The Investigating Officer (PW-8) was cross examined

on behalf of the defence, and a specific

suggestion was put to him with reference to the

complaints made by the accused-appellant and his

family members regarding false implication of the

accused-appellant at the behest of the local MLA. The

Investigating Officer admitted that the complaints

made on behalf of the accused and his family

members, supported by affidavits, had been received

by him, but he did not make any inquiry into such

complaints. {Para 28}

29. This omission assumes significance because the

defence was not merely putting forth a bare

suggestion of false implication. It had specifically

brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer that

the accused-appellant and his family members had

approached the authorities alleging that the

appellant was being falsely implicated and targeted

on account of political rivalry. Once such complaints

were admittedly received during the course of

investigation, the Investigating Officer was expected

to undertake at least some verification before

completely discarding the same. His failure to

conduct any inquiry on these complaints deprives the

Court of an important circumstance which could

have either fortified or dispelled the defence plea.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 135 OF 2026

DHANRAJ  Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN 

Author: Mehta, J.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 07, 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 958.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: An Investigating Agency has no power to attach or debit freeze an account U/S106 of the BNSS

That being so, the law stands well settled that under Section 106 of the BNSS, an Investigating Agency has no power to attach or debit freeze an account. {Para 13}

14. In that view of the matter, the orders, which are passed by the Investigating Agency in respective petitions under Section 106 of the BNSS are liable to be quashed and set aside.

15. We may note here that there is, in place system to deal with the financial fraud, which is titled as "Citizen Financial Cyber Frauds Reporting and Management System". This system has been published by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre, which comes under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Our attention is invited to FAQs, particularly, FAQ No. 21. The said question and answer would throw further light as to how Banks should deal with reports/communications received from an Investigating Agency. FAQ No. 21 and its answer reads as under :

"21. Whether the Bank can block/withhold the funds on the basis of the complaint's acknowledgement number that gets reported on the helpline number or NCRP ?

Yes, Bank/intermediaries can put the disputed amount on lien on the basis of the complaint's acknowledgement number so that amount can be refunded later, after investigation of the complaint by concerned State/Uts LEAs."

16. As could be seen, Bank/intermediaries can put the disputed amount on lien, but cannot debit freeze the account.

17. Despite such status, some Banks upon receiving certain communications from Investigating Agency, which does not even call for debit freezing accounts, are proceeding to debit freeze the accounts of the account holders resulting into losses to their day-to-day affairs.

18. Put all together, it is abundantly clear that an Investigating Agency has no power of attachment/debit freezing a Bank Account under Section 106 of the BNSS.

19. The Investigating Agency may, however, proceed in terms of Section 107 of the BNSS to debit freeze or attach a Bank Account.

20. So far as Banks are concerned, they should act in terms of the Management System, mentioned above, unless there is an specific order of debit freezing an account by a competent authority.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 321 of 2025.

Decided On: 20.11.2025

Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Anil L. Pansare and Raj D. Wakode, JJ.

Citation: MANU/MH/9314/2025.

Print Page

Karnataka HC: What are parameters for invoking S 111 of BNS 2023 of organised crime?

 The primary intent behind introducing Section111 of BNS, 2023, is to provide a targeted and effective mechanism to dismantle organized crime syndicate. From a reading of the said provision of law, it is manifest that for the purpose of invoking Section 111 of BNS, 2023, there are certain basic parameters and if only it is found that the accused comes within the said parameters, the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 can be invoked. The said parameters are as follows:

(a) the offences enlisted in the Section must have been committed;

(b) accused should be a member of an organized crime syndicate;

(c) he should have committed the crime as a member of an organized crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate;

(d) he should have been chargesheeted more than once before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years for a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for three years or more and the Court before which chargesheet has been filed should have taken cognizance of such offence and includes economic offence;

(e) the crime must be committed by using violence, intimidation, threat, coercion or by any other unlawful means. {Para 11}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Criminal Petition No. 893 of 2025

Decided On: 11.03.2025

Avinash Vs. The State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.

Citation: 2025:KHC:10169, MANU/KA/0938/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Karnataka HC : Trial Courts Must Be Cautious While Granting Permission To IO For Invoking Charges On Organised Crime U/S 111 BNS Against Accused

This Court has noticed that Investigation Officer has filed an application before the Trial Court seeking permission to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 and the Trial Court without application of mind has allowed the said application. Offence under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 is punishable with life imprisonment and therefore, statute provides ninety days time to complete the investigation and file a final report. {Para 14}

15. In the present case, chargesheet was required to be filed within sixty days from the date of arrest of the accused. However since the Trial Court has permitted the Investigation Officer to invoke the offences punishable under Sections 111(3) and 111(4) of BNS, 2023, the time to complete investigation and submit final report, automatically gets extended and thereby, the precious right guaranteed to an accused under Section 187(3) of BNSS, 2023 is infringed and his right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is also curtailed.

16. The Courts are therefore required to be more cautious while permitting the Investigation Officer to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 and whenever such an application/requisition is filed by the Investigation Officer, the Courts are required to apply their mind and thereafter pass necessary orders. The application/requisition of the Investigation Officer seeking permission of the Court to invoke Section 111 of BNS, 2023, shall be accompanied with necessary documents/materials which would prima-facie show the necessity to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023 and it is only after considering such material which is are produced by the Investigation Officer along with the application/requisition, the concerned Court can consider his request to invoke the offence punishable under Section 111 of BNS, 2023.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Criminal Petition No. 893 of 2025

Decided On: 11.03.2025

Avinash Vs. The State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.

Citation: 2025:KHC:10169, MANU/KA/0938/2025.

Print Page

Karnataka HC: How to prove that particular police officer was appointed as investigating officer in particular case?

 As per Rule 7 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a Police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintended of Police. The Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. {Para 29}

30. There is no document on record to show that he was appointed by Superintendent of Police to investigate this case.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)

Cri. A. No. 2800 of 2010

Decided On: 15.05.2019

Ashok Sangappa Sidareddi Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Bellunke, J.

Citation: 2019 CRLJ 4052, AIRONLINE 2019 Kar 458,MANU/KA/7633/2019.

Read full judgment here : Click here.

Print Page

Karnataka HC: How to appreciate prosecution evidence U/S 353 of IPC regarding performance of official duty by public servant?

 As per Rule 7 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a Police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintended of Police. The Investigating Officer shall be appointed by the State Government/Director General of Police/Superintendent of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible time. {Para 29}

30. There is no document on record to show that he was appointed by Superintendent of Police to investigate this case. On perusal of his evidence, he has not at all stated anything with regard to PW1 that he was on duty and how his official duty was obstructed on account of incident in question. It is important to note that neither PW1 nor PW5 deposed with regard to the deterring by the accused in performing the official duties of PW1. There is no presumption as such with the official in the office during the office hours should be presumed to be on duty. In order to prove the offence under Section 353 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove PW1 was on official duty and the act committed by the accused deterred him from doing his duty. In the absence of these ingredients the accused could not have even convicted for the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. Though the Investigating Officer obtained Ex. P9, but it is not stated on what basis Ex. P9 was issued and what was the duty the complainant was doing at the time of incident. No inference can be drawn from the document that PWs. 1 and 2 were discharging any duty as such. In Ex. P9, the name of the person, who had signed is not mentioned or no office seal is attested to it. He did not know whose custody the movement register there in the office nor he has verified the same. Who obtained Ex. P9 is not forthcoming. There is no serial number of the said letter nor the name of staff who obtained and furnished the document to Investigating Officer, is not mentioned.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (DHARWAD BENCH)

Cri. A. No. 2800 of 2010

Decided On: 15.05.2019

Ashok Sangappa Sidareddi Vs. State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Bellunke, J.

Citation: 2019 CRLJ 4052, AIRONLINE 2019 Kar 458,MANU/KA/7633/2019.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate prosecution evidence when investigating officer has failed to secure independent witnesses even though incident occurred in public place?

As such there are major contradictions in the evidence of these five witnesses. What is more surprising is that the Investigating Officer did not get any independent witness in the reservation hall, where hundreds of persons are always present during reservation hours. The argument of the Applicant that a false case has been concocted against him and he has been intentionally removed from the railway platform, where he was running a food stall, appears to be probable. In my opinion, the Applicant has been able to probabilise his case. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses appears to be wholly doubtful. The learned trial court and the appellate court in fact could not have accepted such a contrary evidence of constables and head constable belonging to the same department. {Para 5}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Revision Application No. 149 of 2005

Decided On: 21.08.2014

George Cyriac Maruthukunnel Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: M.L. Tahaliyani, J.

Citation: 2015 ALL MR (Cri) 897, MANU/MH/2748/2014

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances Session Judge can permit production of additional documents by prosecution after filing of chargesheet?

 From the aforesaid sub-sections, it is apparent that normally, the investigating Officer is required to produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting the charge-sheet. At the same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. If some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or charge-sheet, it is always open to the Investigating Officer to produce the same with the permission of the Court. In our view, considering the preliminary stage of prosecution and the context in which Police Officer is required to forward to the Magistrate all the documents or the relevant extracts thereof on which prosecution proposes to rely, the word 'shall' used in Sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but as directory. Normally, the documents gathered during the investigation upon which the prosecution wants to rely are required to be forwarded to the Magistrate, but if there is some omission, it would not mean that the remaining documents cannot be produced subsequently. Analogous provision under Section 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was considered by this Court in Narayan Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh   MANU/SC/0042/1957 : 1957CriLJ1320 and it was held that the word 'shall' occurring in Sub-section 4 of Section 173 and Sub-section3 of Section 207A is not mandatory but only directory. Further, the scheme of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 also makes it abundantly clear that even after the charge-sheet is submitted, further investigation, if called for, is not precluded. If further investigation is not precluded then there is no question of not permitting the prosecution to produce additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to investigation. In such cases, there can not be any prejudice to the accused. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Special Court cannot be sustained. {Para 7}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (crl.) 1045 of 2000

Decided On: 03.04.2002

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Vs. R.S. Pai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.B. Shah, Brijesh Kumar and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.

Author: M.B. Shah, J.

Citation: MANU / SC / 0246 / 2002,AIR 2002 SC 1644,( 2002 ) 5 SCC 82.

Print Page

Excellent Video explaining how India's Supreme Court Shields Advocate-Client Privilege from Investigative Overreach

  

This video is produced and presented for educational and informational purposes only. The content is based on the Supreme Court of India judgment,

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 632 of 2025 and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9334 of 2025

In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai, C.J.I., K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Decided On: 31.10.2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 1275, MANU/SC/1470/2025.

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/11/guardians-of-confidentiality-how-indias.html

The judgment discussed pertains to the client's legal privilege under Sections 132 to 134 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) and related Supreme Court directions as cited in the source. This content is aimed at legal professionals, students, and scholars seeking insight into client-advocate confidentiality in Indian law.

Disclaimer

The video and accompanying materials do not constitute legal advice or opinion and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, the creators and host disclaim any liability for errors or omissions.

Viewers are encouraged to refer to the original Supreme Court judgment and consult qualified legal experts for specific cases or issues. Use of this video is at the viewer's discretion, and the creators assume no responsibility for outcomes based on this information.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances can an investigating officer again seek custody of the accused after the accused is released on the grounds of non-furnishing of grounds of arrest?

 It goes without saying that if the abovesaid schedule

for supplying the grounds of arrest in writing is not

adhered to, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling

the release of the arrestee. On such release, an

application for remand or custody, if required, will be

moved along with the reasons and necessity for the

same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in

writing setting forth the explanation for non-supply

thereof within the above stipulated schedule. On

receipt of such an application, the magistrate shall

decide the same expeditiously and preferably within

a week of submission thereof by adhering to the

principles of natural justice. {Para 55}.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2195 OF 2025

MIHIR RAJESH SHAH Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 

Author: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1288.

Dated: NOVEMBER 06, 2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

How the Supreme Court's Landmark Decision Protects Your Right to Confidential Legal Advice?

 

How the Supreme Court's Landmark Decision Protects Your Right to Confidential Legal Advice

The Supreme Court of India has delivered a landmark judgment that will transform how investigating agencies interact with lawyers. In a historic decision  In Re : Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues (2025 INSC 1275), the Court categorically ruled that investigating officers cannot directly summon advocates who are representing accused persons in criminal cases, unless the situation falls under strict exceptions and meets rigorous procedural requirements.

If you are a criminal defendant, understand this: The investigating agency cannot simply drag your lawyer into the police station to extract information about your case. Your lawyer's confidential communications with you remain sacrosanct under the law.

The Case That Changed Everything

Print Page

Guardians of Confidentiality: How India's Supreme Court Shields Advocate-Client Privilege from Investigative Overreach

The Way Forward:

67. On a broad conspectus of the Client-Advocate privilege as codified in Section 132 to 134 of the BSA; though we are not persuaded to lay down any guidelines, which we believe are sufficiently available on an interpretation of the provisions itself, which also restrains us from constituting a committee of legal professionals, we issue the following directions; to ensure that the privilege is not impinged upon by valiant investigators or overzealous parties to a litigation, purely on the basis of the interpretation of the evidentiary Rules codified:

1. Section 132 is a privilege conferred on the client, obliging an Advocate not to disclose any professional communications, made in confidence, which privilege, in the absence of the client can be invoked by the Advocate on behalf of the client.

1.1 The Investigating Officers in a criminal case or a Station House Officer conducting a preliminary inquiry in a cognizable offence shall not issue a summons to an Advocate who represents the Accused to know the details of the case, unless it is covered under any of the exceptions Under Section 132.

1.2 When a summons is so issued to an Advocate, under any of the exceptions, it shall explicitly specify the facts on which the exception is sought to be relied upon, which shall also be with the consent of the superior Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police who shall record his satisfaction as to the exception in writing, before the summons is issued.

1.3 A summons so issued shall be subject to judicial review at the instance of the Advocate or the client Under Section 528 of the BNSS.

1.4 The Advocate on whom there is an obligation of non-disclosure as per Section 132 of the BSA shall be one who is engaged in a litigation or in a non-litigious or a pre-litigation matter.

2. Production of documents in the possession of the Advocate or the client will not be covered under the privilege conferred by Section 132, either in a civil case or a criminal case.

2.1 In a criminal case, the production of a document directed by a Court or an Officer shall be complied with by production before the Court Under Section 94 of the BNSS; being regulated also by Section 165 of the BSA.

2.2 In a civil case, the production of a document shall be regulated by Section 165 of BSA and Order XVI Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2.3 On production of such document, it shall be upon the Court to decide on any objection filed with respect to the order to produce, and the admissibility of the document, after hearing the Advocate and the party whom the Advocate represents.

3. The production of a digital device Under Section 94 of the BNSS if directed by an Investigating Officer, the direction shall only be to produce it before the Jurisdictional Court.

3.1 On production of the digital device by the Advocate before the Court; the Court shall issue notice to the party with respect to whom the details are sought to be discovered from the digital device and hear the party and the Advocate on any objection regarding the production of the digital device, discovery from it and the admissibility of that discovered.

3.2 If the objections are overruled by the Court, then the digital device shall be opened only in the presence of the party and the Advocate, who will be enabled due assistance of a person with expertise in digital technology, of their choice.

3.3 While examining the digital device, care shall be taken by the Court not to impair the confidentiality with respect to the other clients of the Advocate and the discovery shall be confined to that sought by the Investigating Officer, if it is found to be permissible and admissible.

4. In-house counsel will not be entitled to the privilege Under Section 132 since they are not Advocates practicing in Courts as spoken of in the BSA.

4.1 The In-house counsel, however, would be entitled to the protection Under Section 134 insofar as any communication made to the legal advisor of his employer, which however, cannot be claimed for the communications between the employer and the In-house counsel.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 632 of 2025 and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 9334 of 2025

In Re: Summoning Advocates Who Give Legal Opinion or Represent Parties During Investigation of Cases and Related Issues.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai, C.J.I., K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Decided On: 31.10.2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 1275, MANU/SC/1470/2025.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Investigating Officer's Testimony Based Solely on Section 161 CrPC Statements of Witnesses is Inadmissible

 The only view that comes forth is that the prosecution completely failed to prove the allegations raised and charged against each of the Accused, more by reason of all the witnesses paraded before Court, at the trial, having turned hostile for reasons unknown. Whatever be the reason behind such hostility, it cannot result in a conviction, based on the testimony of the Investigating Officers which is founded only on Section 161 statements and voluntary statements of Accused; the former violative of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the latter in breach of Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 3189-3190 of 2023, 3399 of 2024 and 85-86 of 2024

Decided On: 09.05.2025

Renuka Prasad Vs. The State 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 657, MANU/SC/0667/2025

Print Page

Supreme Court: Revisional court can not set aside acquittal of accused relying on police or S 164 CRPC statement of witness if that witness has turned hostile to prosecution case

 It appears that the High Court relied upon the police statement of PW-7 recorded Under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of his oral testimony before the trial court. {Para 74}

63. Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure bars the use of statement of witnesses recorded by the police except for the limited purpose of contradiction of such witnesses as indicated therein. The statement made by a witness before the police Under Section 161(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can be used only for the purpose of contradicting such witness on what he has stated at the trial as laid down in the proviso to Section 162(1) Code of Criminal Procedure The statements Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure recorded during the investigation are not substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily for the limited purpose : (i) of contradicting such witness by an Accused Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act; (ii) the contradiction of such witness also by the prosecution but with the leave of the Court; and (iii) the re- examination of the witness if necessary.

64. The court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not proved and ask questions with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words 'if duly proved' used in Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure clearly show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightaway, nor can be looked into, but they must be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by eliciting admission from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. The statement before the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction but only after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.

80. This Court explained that the trial courts cannot independently use statements made to the police that have not been proven, nor can it base its questions on such statements if they conflict with the witness's testimony in court. The phrase 'if duly proved' in Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that the statements of witnesses recorded by the police cannot be immediately admitted as evidence or examined. They must first be proven through eliciting admissions from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. While statements made to the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction, this can only be done after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act. This requires drawing attention to the specific parts of the statement intended for contradiction. This is what is required Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act but even where a witness is confronted by his previous statement and given an opportunity to explain that part of the statement that is put to him does not constitute substantive evidence.

81. There is a catena of decisions laying down the principle in law that the material elicited as contradiction by use of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is not substantive evidence. Even in regard to the statement recorded Under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by authorised Magistrate, it has been held accordingly. Therefore, the fact that the contradictions are proved through the investigating officers though the witnesses have denied having made such statements, does not translate the contradictions into substantive evidence. Unless there is substantive evidence, it cannot be acted upon legally particularly to base a conviction.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 5560-5561 of 2024

Decided On: 29.01.2025

Mahabir and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala,  and R. Mahadevan, , JJ.

Author:  J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation MANU/SC/0122/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Can Defense Prove Witness Statement Recorded Under Section 161 CrPC Without Examining the Witness? Recent Supreme Court Clarifications

In criminal trials, statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) serve as important investigative tools. However, these statements do not automatically have evidentiary value at the trial stage unless the witness who made the statement is produced and examined in court. A common question arises when the prosecution does not examine a witness whose Section 161 statement was recorded: Can the defense rely on the Investigating Officer’s (IO’s) testimony regarding that witness’s statement to prove the contents without examining the witness?

Legal Position on Section 161 Statements

Print Page

AP HC: What action Insurance Company should take if it comes to its knowledge that claimant has put up a false motor accident claim petition in collusion with police?

Admittedly, in this case, the claimants have filed the claim petition on 17.10.2001. The Insurance Company filed counter thereafter. This means, the Insurance Company had knowledge that an allegation is made by the claimant with regard to the involvement of the lorry bearing registration No. ABT 3 in this accident. When the Insurance Company had knowledge that the claimants have alleged involvement of the lorry bearing registration No. ABT 3 in the accident, the Insurance Company should verify the facts. The possibility of falsely involving the vehicle in an accident cannot be ruled out. But as seen from the recitals of the counter, the Insurance Company had not taken any specific stand. At one stage, it doubted the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and at another stage, the insurance company had pleaded that the deceased himself had contributed to the accident. Thus, the insurance company had no clear view with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. When the Insurance Company entertains a doubt with regard to the involvement of a vehicle in the accident, it should appoint an investigator to enquire into the allegations as to whether a particular vehicle had plied on the particular route at particular time on a particular day or not. Fact should be verified. If the Insurance Company collects any such evidence to establish that the vehicle was not involved in the accident, then, they must contest the matter and adduce evidence in support of their case. When they come to know that the police investigation is false or that a vehicle is falsely implicated in a case, they must approach the superior police officers and see that necessary action is taken against the erring police officers who have filed a false charge-sheet implicating the vehicle which has no involvement in the accident. They must also challenge the charge-sheet in appropriate proceedings. What happened during the course of investigation and how the police have come to know about the involvement of the vehicle and whether it is due to Finding of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle at the place of accident or due to the version of the eye witnesses, all those aspects cannot be gone into at this stage. The possibility of police coming to know about the involvement of a vehicle or an accused through some unknown source also cannot be ruled out. The police officers do commit certain mistakes and involve innocent persons in criminal cases. Due to over enthusiastic attitude also, they commit mistakes. What is the fact is to be ascertained. It has to be seen whether police investigation resulted in finding the truth or not. If at all the findings of the police are found to be totally incorrect, it is for the insurance company to adduce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge-sheet are false. It is a fact that P.W. 2 deposed that the offending vehicle was not stopped at the place of accident. If that version is correct, there is no possibility of falling of driving licence at the place of accident. Admittedly, the accident occurred during the night time. Even if P.W. 2 had witnessed the accident and noted the offending vehicle number, admittedly he did not get down from the lorry in which he was travelling. It appears that it being night time, he could not have observed the place of accident and he might not have observed each and every object fallen at the place of accident. It is only during the course of preparation of panchanama at the place of accident that the panchas and the police are expected to observe each and every item and note them in their panchanama. The very purpose of conducting panchanama and the scene of offence is to show the location of the dead body, location of offending vehicle, time, marks or falling of any other objects at the place of accident.

{Para 19}

20. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents/insurance company submitted that the version of P.W. 2 that the offending vehicle was not stopped at the place of accident supports the version of the insurance company that there is no possibility of falling of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle at the place of accident. As discussed above, since there is no clear evidence to show the distance between the offending lorry and the lorry in which P.W. 2 was travelling, the version of P.W. 2 that the offending vehicle did not stop at the place of accident need not be given much importance. Of course, this circumstance indicates that P.W. 2 also did not see the occurring of the accident. Even if we discard the evidence of P.W. 2, charge-sheet shows that there are two other eye-witnesses. Unless it is shown that police investigation is false, we cannot reach to a definite conclusion. When there is reasonable doubt in a claim petition arising out of the motor accidents, the benefit of doubt should go to the claimants. The possibility of the driver of the offending lorry stopping the offending vehicle at the place of the accident and looking at the scene and fleeing away from the place of accident also cannot be ruled out. Unless there is reliable evidence to show that the contents of the charge-sheet are false, on mere surmise, it cannot be said that the contents of the charge-sheet or the police investigation is false.

21. Learned standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that the insurance company has appointed the investigator, but however, the report of the said investigator is not available in the records of the insurance company. When such an important document is not filed by the insurance company, normally, adverse inference has to be drawn against the insurance company. Admittedly, none were examined on behalf of the insurance company. Mere taking a plea that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident or that there is contributory negligence would not help the insurance company in the absence of any reliable evidence in support of their contentions, A pleading cannot be taken as proved unless there is evidence to prove the same.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

M.A.C.M.A. No. 2128 of 2005

Decided On: 26.03.2014

K. Rajani Vs. M. Satyanarayana Goud

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B. Chandra Kumar, J.

Citation: 2014 ALT 6 3312015 ANWR AP 1 52015 ACC AP 3 2932015 ACJ 7972014 SCC ONLINE AP 418, MANU/AP/0828/2014

Print Page

Delhi HC: Chargesheet Filed under S.187(3) BNSS Without Obtaining Sanction To Prosecute Under Arms Act Not Incomplete, No Default Bail

 Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Judgebir Singh v. NIA, MANU/SC/0501/2023 : 2023:INSC:472 : (2023) 17 SCC 48 referred to the judgment in Suresh Kumar (supra) and held that a chargesheet filed without sanction cannot be treated as an incomplete chargesheet and does not entitle an accused to a default bail as contemplated under Section 167(2) of the CrPC [now Section 187(3) of the BNSS]. 

"45. We find no merit in the principal argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants that a charge-sheet filed without sanction is an incomplete charge-sheet which could be termed as not in consonance with sub- section (5) of Section 173CrPC. It was conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the charge-sheet was filed well within the statutory time period i.e. 180 days, however, the court concerned could not have taken cognizance of such charge-sheet in the absence of the orders of sanction not being a part of such charge-sheet. Whether the sanction is required or not under a statute, is a question that has to be considered at the time of taking cognizance of the offence and not during inquiry or investigation. There is a marked distinction in the stage of investigation and prosecution. The prosecution starts when the cognizance of offence is taken. It is also to be kept in mind that cognizance is taken of the offence and not of the offender. It cannot be said that obtaining sanction from the competent authorities or the authorities concerned is part of investigation. Sanction is required only to enable the court to take cognizance of the offence. The court may take cognizance of the offence after the sanction order was produced before the court, but the moment, the final report is filed along with the documents that may be relied on by the prosecution, then the investigation will be deemed to have been completed. Taking cognizance is entirely different from completing the investigation. To complete the investigation and file a final report is a duty of the investigating agency, but taking cognizance of the offence is the power of the court. The court in a given case, may not take cognizance of the offence for a particular period of time even after filing of the final report. In such circumstance, the accused concerned cannot claim their indefeasible right under Section 167(2)CrPC for being released on default bail. What is contemplated under Section 167(2)CrPC is that the Magistrate or Designated Court (as the case may be) has no powers to order detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days or 90 days or 60 days as the case may be. If the investigation is concluded within the prescribed period, no right accrues to the accused concerned to be released on bail under the proviso to Section 167(2)CrPC. {Para 36}

46. Once a final report has been filed with all the documents on which the prosecution proposes to rely, the investigation shall be deemed to have been completed. After completing investigation and submitting a final report to the court, the investigating officer can send a copy of the final report along with the evidence collected and other materials to the sanctioning authority to enable the sanctioning authority to apply his mind to accord sanction. According sanction is the duty of the sanctioning authority who is not connected with the investigation at all. In case the sanctioning authority takes some time to accord sanction, that does not vitiate the final report filed by the investigating agency before the court. Section 173CrPC does not speak about the sanction order at all. Section 167CrPC also speaks only about investigation and not about cognizance by the Magistrate. Therefore, once a final report has been filed, that is the proof of completion of investigation and if final report is filed within the period of 180 days or 90 days or 60 days from the initial date of remand of accused concerned, he cannot claim that a right has accrued to him to be released on bail for want of filing of sanction order.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Bail Appln. 1713/2025

Decided On: 25.06.2025

Suraj Kanojia Vs. State Govt of Nct of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Tejas Karia, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/4621/2025.

Print Page