Whether the court can convict accused based on evidence of Judicial Magistrate who recorded statement of victim U/S 164 of CRPC if victim has turned hostile?

Even Supreme Court in case of Brij Nath Sah v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0344/2010 : 2010:INSC:255 : (2010) 6 SCC 736 has reiterated same principles. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a statement under Section 164 is not substantive evidence and can be utilized only to corroborate or contradict the witness vis-a-vis statement made in court. {Para 68}

 70. Trial Court was wrong in convicting the Appellant by taking recourse to statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the basis of the evidence of the learned Magistrate and the medical evidence, statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code can be treated as previous statement only. 

71. So if we look at the weightage and value of evidence of judicial officer from all the angles, we may find that his evidence cannot be said direct on the point of happening of the incident. Because he is not giving the evidence on the basis of facts seen by him. His evidence is on the point of what he has heard through the mouth of the victim.

72. So for what purpose this provision is included in the Code. The mechanism created by the Code is investigation carried out by the police including recording the statement of the witnesses. Recording statement through the Magistrate is also a part of investigation. Such statement stands on higher pedestal than the police statement. Still we can not attach more value than recognized by the law. Such statement falls within the category of 'previous statement' only. Its use is permissible in the mode prescribed in the Evidence Act only.

73. Does it mean to say that this statement can be the basis for conviction just because it is recorded by judicial official and oath is administered? Answer is 'No'. The reason is this statement is not recorded in the presence of the accused and there is no opportunity of the cross-examination to the maker of the statement when such statement is recorded by the Magistrate. So ultimately, when Magistrate gives evidence, his evidence is not the evidence about the witnessing the incident but it is evidence of facts stated before him by the victim.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2019

Decided On: 09.05.2024

Deelip Tatoba Raje Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.M. Modak, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3173/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether evidence of child witness is admissible in evidence if judge did not certify that child understood the duty of speaking the truth?

The first point taken before us related to the admissibility of the evidence of the girl herself. Her age was stated to be seven or eight years at the time of the examination by the learned. Assistant Sessions Judge who recorded her testimony. He certified that she did not understand the sanctity of an oath and accordingly did not administer one to her. He did not certify that the child understood the duty of speaking the truth. {Para 6}

7. The proviso to section 5 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, prescribes that-"Provided that where the witness is a child under twelve years of age, and the Court or person having authority to examine such witness is of opinion that, though he understands the duty of speaking the truth, he does not understand the nature of an oath or affirmation the foregoing provisions of this section and the provisions of section 6 shall not apply to such witness, but in any such case the absence of an oath or affirmation shall not render inadmissible any evidence given by such witness nor affect the obligation of the witness to state the truth."

8. The question is whether the opinion referred to must be formally recorded or whether it can be inferred from the circumstances in which the deposition was taken.

9. The proviso quoted above must be read along with section 118 of the Evidence Act and section 13 of the Oaths Act. In my opinion, an omission to administer an oath, even to an adult, goes only to the credibility of the witness and not his competency. The question of competency is dealt with in section 118. Every witness is competent unless the Court considers he is prevented from understanding the questions put to him, or from giving rational answers by reason of tender years, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind. It will be observed that there is always competency in fact unless the court considers otherwise. No other ground of incompetency is given, therefore unless the Oaths Act adds additional grounds of incompetency it is evident that section 118 must prevail.

10. Now the Oaths Act does not deal with competency. Its main object is to render persons who give false evidence liable to prosecution. It is true a subsidiary object is to bring home to the witness the solemnity of the occasion and to impress upon him the duty of speaking the truth, but, in view of section 118 these matters only touch credibility and not admissibility. In my opinion, section 13 of the Oaths Act places this beyond doubt. It states-

"No omission to take any oath or make any affirmation........ and no irregularity whatever, in the form in which any one of them is administered, shall invalidate any proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence whatever........."

11. Section 5 is the main provision regarding the administration of oaths. The proviso only sets out the cases in which the oath is not to be administered. If, therefore, an omission to take the oath does not affect the admissibility of the evidence, it follows that an irregularity of the kind we are considering which arises out of the proviso cannot affect the admissibility either Section 118 remains and unless the judge considers otherwise the witness is competent.

12. I do not think it will be useful to consider English authorities on the point because we are governed here by the terms of the various sections I have referred to. But a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is in point. Their Lordships stated in Mohamed Sugal Esa v. The King MANU/PR/0086/1945 : A.I.R. 1946 P.C. 3:-

"Section 13, Oaths Act, is quite unqualified in its terms and there is nothing to suggest that it is to apply only where the omission to administer the oath occurs per incuriam. If that had been the intention of the Legislature, it would have been simple to insert words in the section to that effect.........It may be observed that this question can no longer arise in India because in 1939 the Legislature passed the Oaths (Amendment) Act (Act XXXIX of 1939) which settles the law in accordance with the Bengal and Oudh decisions referred to above."

13. The decisions to which their Lordships refer are R. v. Sewa Bhogta 14 Beng. L.R. 294 F.N. and Ram Samujh v. Emperor (1907) 10 O.C. 337. The decisions there were that the section being unqualified in terms did apply to a case where the Court accepted the evidence of a child to whom the oath was not administered on the ground that the witness did not understand its nature. The principle of the decisions applies here because, as their Lordships observe, the section is unqualified in its terms.

14. I would add however that it is desirable that judges and magistrates should always record their opinion that the child understands the duty of speaking the truth and state why they think that otherwise the credibility of witness may be seriously affected, so much so that in some cases it may be necessary to reject the evidence altogether. But whether the magistrate or judge really was of that opinion can, I think, be gathered from the circumstances when there is no formal certificate.

In the present case, it is plain that the learned Judge had the proviso in mind because he certified that the witness does not understand the nature of an oath and so did not administer one but despite that went on to take her evidence. It is also an important fact that the accused, who was represented by counsel, did not object. Had he raised the point the Judge would doubtless have made good the omission. I am of opinion that Mst Purni was a competent witness and that her evidence is admissible. In the Privy Council case which I have just cited, their Lordships said-

"It is not to be supposed that any judge would accept as a witness a person who he considered was incapable not only of understanding the nature of an oath but also the necessity of speaking the truth when examined as a witness."

15. That is the very point here. One can presume that the learned Judge had that in mind from the fact that he examined the child after referring to a fact which arises out of the proviso.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1951

Decided On: 20.12.1951

Rameshwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Saiyid Fazl Ali and Vivian Bose, JJ.

Authored By : Vivian Bose, Saiyid Fazl Ali

Vivian Bose, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0036/1951,1951SCC 1213,1951 SCCONLINE SC 83,AIR 1952 SC 54.

Print Page

Whether injured person can be contradicted with his dying declaration treating it as his previous statement?

 The Executive Magistrate had purportedly recorded a statement of P.W.1 Jagannath in the form of a dying declaration. In view of Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the so-called dying declaration can be treated as a former statement made by P.W.1 and, therefore, the same can be used for contradicting the witness. When P.W.1 Jagannath was confronted with a portion of hisstatement at Ex.D-2, he accepted that the statement does not refer to the presence of accused nos.1, 3, 7, 8 and 9. {Para 7}

 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.162 of 2010

Ramcharan (Dead) & Anr. Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 

Author: Abhay S. Oka, J.

Dated: December 07, 2022.

Print Page

Whether complainant's statement recorded U/S 200 of CRPC can be used to contradict or discredit him?

While taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate examines the complaint on oath and the witnesses present if any. Then, the Magistrate reduces to writing only "the substance of such examination". This substance aids the Magistrate to form a prima facie opinion about the case. In other words, it is to discover the truth or otherwise of the allegations made. It is for deciding the question purely from the complainant's viewpoint, with no reference to the possible defence. Thus, the procedure under Section 200 Cr.P.C. is non- adversarial And what is recorded is not the complainant's verbatim statement, only the substance or gist. Therefore, it is not a piece of substantial evidence to be used to contradict or discredit the complainant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 657 of 2018

Decided On: 23.07.2019

Doshi Brothers Vs.  The State of Maharashtra 

Print Page

Whether evidence of witnesses recorded prior to passing of exparte decree can be used to confront them?

 In my view, where an order setting aside the ex parte decree with permission to file written statement attains the finality, it has the effect of wiping out the entire evidence recorded prior to setting aside the ex parte decree and the Court will have to re-record such evidence. The evidence of the witnesses of the plaintiff recorded earlier can be used to confront it to the said witnesses, as is permissible under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, being the previous statement of the witnesses.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 2177 of 2016

Decided On: 03.04.2018

 Chandraprakash Dayaramji Lanjewar Vs.  Ratnakala Wamanrao Khatkhede and Ors.

Print Page

Whether police statement of witness recorded in one case can be used in other case?

Further, in State of Kerala V Babu (1999 (4) SCC 621),

  the Apex Court was confronted with the question as to

  whether the statement of a witness recorded under S.161

  of Cr.P.C. in one particular crime could be used against

  that witness in any other trial enquiry or proceedings by

  the accused.



               11. "The High Court in the impugned
                judgment proceeded on the basis that
                statement recorded by an investigating
                officer in any case which was under
                investigation being a statement made
                under S, 161 of the Code, the same can be
                used for the limited purpose provided under
                S.162 of the Code read with S.145 of the
                Evidence Act. There can be no quarrel with
                this approach of the High Court in regard to
                the use of the previous statements of a
                witness made in the course of another
                investigation being used in the course of
                another criminal trial, This is because, as
                seen from the observations of this Court in
                the case of Tahsildar Singh (supra) the


                very object of enactment of S.161 of the
                Code and S.145 of the Evidence Act is to
                create a right in the accused to make use
                of the previous statements of the witnesses
                for the purpose of contradiction and for
                impeaching the merit of the witness. This
                right has not been taken away by S.172 of
                the Code and, as noticed above, there is no
                prohibition in regard to this right of the
                accused either under the Code or under the
                Evidence Act.


        


               13............................. If that be so and if
                the court comes to the conclusion that the
                production of such document is necessary
                or desirable then, in our opinion, the court
                is entitled to summon the case diary of
                another case under S.91 of the Code de
                hors the provisions of S.172 of the Code for
                the purpose of using the statements made
                in the said diary, for contradicting a
                witness. When a case diary, as stated
                above, is summoned under S.91(1) of the
                Code then the restrictions imposed under
                Sub-s.(1) and (3) of S.172 would not apply
                to the use of such case diary but we hasten
                to  add     that     while     using   a  previous
                statement recorded in the said diary, the
                court should bear in mind the restrictions
                imposed under S.162 of the Code and
                S.145 of the Evidence Act because what is
                sought to be used from the case diary so
                produced, are the previous statements
                recorded under S.161 of the Code.
                                                    ( Emphasis supplied )



16.Having regard to the above binding precedents there

  cannot be any doubt that S.162 of the Code does not

  prohibit the use of the 161 statement of any witness in

  any other proceeding other than the inquiry or trial in

  respect of the offence for which the investigation was

  conducted. However the Apex Court has cautioned that

  the court should bear in mind the restrictions imposed

  under S.162 of the Code and S.145 of the Evidence Act

  because what is sought to be used from the case diary so

  produced, are the previous statements recorded under

  S.161 of the Code. In view of the above, I am of the view

  that the reasons on the basis of which the application was

  dismissed by the Court below cannot be sustained.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                     PRESENT:

                 MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

            26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
                      Crl.MC.No. 6611 of 2016 

       SANTHOSH KUMAR Vs STATE OF KERALA,
                

Print Page

Whether scene mahazar can be used to cross examine investigating officer as his previous statement?

As per Section 145 of the Indian

Evidence Act, a witness may be cross-examined as to

'previous statements' made by him in writing. That means,

as per Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, only a

previous statement in writing of such a witness can be made

use of for contradicting such a witness.


      8.     The next provision is with regard to Section 155

(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, which says that the credit of a

witness may be impeached by the adverse party or with the

consent of the Court by the party who calls him, by proof of

former statements inconsistent with any part of his evidence

which is liable to be contradicted. There also, only in case

of a previous statement, the provision under Section 155(3)

of the Indian Evidence Act can be pressed into service.

      9. Matters being so, the said documents marked as

D30 and D31 in evidence, even if those documents are

admissible under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act

as an electronic record, the same cannot be made use of as

a previous statement within the meaning of Section 145 as

well as Section 155(3) of the Indian Evidence Act.

Admittedly, those DVDs contain the matters recorded by the

investigating officer or some other matters available at the

scene of occurrence during the preparation of the scene

mahazar.      A mahazar cannot be treated as a previous


statement at all.    What was seen by the person, who

prepared the mahazar, are recorded in the mahazar. It is

only a document.

      10. Only when the versions by the person, who has

prepared it, are recorded in writing in the mahazar, it can be

treated as a previous statement. In such case, if the

document contains the previous statement of the person,

who prepared the scene mahazar, the defence may be able

to make use of it under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence

Act to contradict the witness or under Section 155(3) of the

Indian Evidence Act to impeach the credit of the witness.

When it is only a scene mahazar and when those

documents were recorded as things, which were available at

the scene at the time of the preparation of the scene

mahazar, the present request of the accused to make use of

it under Section 145 or Section 155(3) of the Indian

Evidence Act is not legally sustainable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                        MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

          8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

                                           Crl.MC.No. 7647 of 2015 ()
                                              

      MOHAMMED NISSAM Vs  STATEOF KERALA
Citation:2016 CRLJ 4319

Print Page

Whether Video CD is admissible in evidence as previous statement of witness?

 Now, the question is as to whether or not the video C.D.

containing a recorded interview of PW 3 could be used for the purpose of contradicting the prosecution witnesses or for the purpose of testing veracity of their evidence or impeaching their credit.

11. The Constitution Bench comprising Five Hon'ble Judges Bench of the Supreme Court as far back in the year 1971 has settled the law on the issue raised by the above question. The Hon'ble Apex Court, by considering the provisions contained in Sections 146, 153, 155 and 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has held that a previous statement made by a witness and recorded on tape can be used not only to corroborate the evidence given by the witness in Court, but also to contradict the evidence of such a witness or to test the veracity of the evidence of such witness or to impeach the credit of such a witness. Accordingly, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that previous statement of a witness which has been recorded on tape is admissible. This law has also been followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Havovi Kersi (supra).

12. Now a previous statement recorded on tape is admissible in evidence, I do not understand as to how a compact disc, (CD), which is capable of containing not only the audio signal but also the video signal can be held to be inadmissible in evidence by mere reference to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It does not require an expert opinion to find that a CD records not only the statement made by a person or the conversation between the persons but also the live picture frames of the person making a statement or the persons engaged in conversation. In other words, a CD can contain record of not only the statement or conversation but also of the person or the actors who can be heard and seen as making statements. Thus, by all means, a CD can be said to be containing previous statements of the persons appearing therein and, therefore, by the application of the principle of law laid down in the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Sri Rama Reddi and others (supra), the previous statements recorded in the CD would also be admissible in evidence. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions has committed a serious error of law in not considering these aspects of the matter and refusing to apply the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Sri Rama Reddi and others (supra).

Bombay High Court

Mohd. Munaf S/O Mohd. Habib And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 9 March, 2015

Bench: S.B. Shukre

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.124 OF 2015

Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)2483

Print Page

Precaution to be taken by court while recording contradictions and omissions in evidence

 Learned counsel Dr.
Kalsi, during the course of arguments, has brought to my notice that there
are glaring omissions in the earlier statement of P.W.3.  She has invited my
attention to the cross­examination of P.W. 3 Shraddha.  The said witness in
her cross­examination has stated that she had stated before the police that
the appellant had outraged her modesty and had committed rape on her.

She was, however, unable to give any explanation as to why these facts are
not recorded in her police statement.  Few more similar omissions are taken
on record for which P.W. 3 was unable to give any explanation.
The Investigating Officer has also stated in his evidence that the
above stated facts were not mentioned by P.W. 3 in her police statement.  It is
seen from the Record and Proceedings that the omissions were recorded and
proved without referring the police statement of P.W. 3.   Had the police
statement of P.W. 3 been seen by the Judge himself or had it been brought to
the notice of P.W. 3 herself the omissions would not have come on record.  In
fact, it was mandatory on the part of the cross­examiner to call attention of
P.W. 3 to her previous statement before any contradiction (omissions) was
intended to be brought on record.  It is noted by me that Section 145 of the
Evidence   Act   was   not   followed   while   recording   omissions   in   the   earlier
statement of P.W. 3.  Section 145 of the Evidence Act runs as under :
“145.  Cross­examination as to previous statements
in writing  – A witness may be cross­examined as to
previous statements made by him in writing or reduced
into   writing,   and   relevant   to   matters   in   question,
without   such   writing   being   shown   to   him,   or   being
proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the
writing, his attention must, before the writing can be
proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used
for the purpose of contradicting him.”
It is thus, clear from reading of Section 145 of the Evidence Act
that if P.W. 3 was intended to be contradicted with her previous statement, it

was necessary for the learned counsel for the appellant to call her attention
to the previous writing and put relevant questions to bring the contradictions
(omissions) on record.  The omissions have been casually recorded without
reference to the previous statement of P.W. 3.  I have gone through her cross examination.
I have come to the conclusion that had the proper procedure
been followed for recording omissions, the omissions would not have come
on record.   As already stated, a very casual approach was adopted by the
prosecutor,   defence   lawyer   and   the   Judge   while   recoding   the   crossexamination
of P.W. 3. In fact, it was the duty of the Judge to regulate the
cross­examination.   He was under obligation to see the writing himself to
ascertain  whether the  question was properly  framed  and he was further
under obligation to see that earlier statement was brought to the notice of
the witness before she was contradicted.  As such, the omissions which have
been brought on record could not be treated as omissions and evidence of
P.W.  3  has  to  be  read  without  omissions   which  are   stated  to  be  proved
omissions. 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2012
Raju S/o. Bhimrao Girnare,
V
The State of Maharashtra, 

      CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.
      DATED   : MARCH 21, 2014.
Citation;2016 CRLJ(NOC)77 Bom

Print Page

Whether witness can be cross examined with reference to his previous statement in CD?

Now a previous statement recorded on tape is admissible in evidence, I do not understand as to how a compact disc, (CD), which is capable of containing not only the audio signal but also the video signal can be held to be inadmissible in evidence by mere reference to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It does not require an expert opinion to find that a CD records not only the statement made by a person or the conversation between the persons but also the live picture frames of the person making a statement or the persons engaged in conversation. In other words, a CD can contain record of not only the statement or conversation but also of the person or the actors who can be heard and seen as making statements. Thus, by all means, a CD can be said to be containing previous statements of the persons appearing therein and, therefore, by the application of the principle of law laid down in the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Sri Rama Reddi and others (supra), the previous statements recorded in the CD would also be admissible in evidence. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions has committed a serious error of law in not considering these aspects of the matter and refusing to apply the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Sri Rama Reddi and others 

Equivalent Citation: 2015(2)BomCR(Cri)428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application (APL) No. 124 of 2015

Decided On: 09.03.2015

 Munaf and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.B. Shukre, J.

Print Page

Whether a witness once examined can be recalled to deny evidence he had already given before court?

 In our opinion, the procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge was not strictly in accordance with law. Once the witness was examined in-chief and cross-examined fully, such witness should not have been recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he had already given before the court, even though that  witness had given an inconsistent statement before any other court or forum subsequently. A witness could be confronted only with a previous statement made by him. At the time of examination of PW-2 Mokam Singh on 6.2.1991, there was no such previous statement and the defence counsel did not confront him with any statement alleged to have been made previously. This witness must have given some other version before the Juvenile Court for extraneous reasons and he should not have been given a further opportunity at a later stage to completely efface the evidence already given by him under oath. The courts have to follow the procedures strictly and cannot allow a witness to escape the legal action for giving false evidence before the court on mere explanation that he had given it under the pressure of the police or some other reason. Whenever the witness speaks falsehood in the court, and it is proved satisfactorily, the court should take a serious action against such witnesses."

Supreme Court of India

Hanuman Ram vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on

 13 October, 2008

Bench: Arijit Pasayat, J.M. Panchal

Citation;(2008)4 Bom CR C11(SC)

Print Page

When electronic document DVD can not be used as previous statement as per S 145 and S 155(3) of Evidence Act?

Matters being so, the said documents marked as

D30 and D31 in evidence, even if those documents are

admissible under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act

as an electronic record, the same cannot be made use of as

a previous statement within the meaning of Section 145 as

well as Section 155(3) of the Indian Evidence Act.

Admittedly, those DVDs contain the matters recorded by the

investigating officer or some other matters available at the

scene of occurrence during the preparation of the scene

mahazar.      A mahazar cannot be treated as a previous



statement at all.    What was seen by the person, who

prepared the mahazar, are recorded in the mahazar. It is

only a document.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                         MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

           TUESDAY,THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015
                                           Crl.MC.No. 7647 of 2015 ()
                                              

    MOHAMMED NISSAM A.A., Vs  THE STATEOF KERALA
           




Coram:  B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

Print Page

Whether evidence recorded in separate trial arising out of same FIR can be considered while deciding application for discharge of accused?

 Shri Singh was submitting that the informant of the case had made a turn round as regards the First Information Report and had stated that he had filed a case under some misunderstanding and misinformation and the information was not correctly projecting the facts. This Court does not have any business to make any comment on the quality of that evidence of the informant except that which has just been pointed out by this Court, that is to say, that the evidence being an evidence in an appropriately conducted trial under Chapter-XVIII of the Cr.P.C. could not be the part of the case record or documents submitted therewith, that is, the police report and, as such, was completely outside the consideration of the Court. It has its own value and the value is to confront the maker of the statement, if he was to contest the trial on which the petitioners should be put on, to draw his attention to show the falsity of his evidence which might be coming during that trial. Except that particular use which could be made in the light of the provision ofSection 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, that recorded evidence of the informant does not have any value as regards a judge proceeding under Section 227 or 228 Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court

Subidha Devi & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 April, 2015

Citation; 2015 CRLJ2906 Patna

Print Page