CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section 172 - Diary of proceeding in investigation

Comments 1. Legislative history.- This section corresponds to section 172 of the old Code but sub-section (2) of the old Code has been divided into sub-sections (2) and (3). 2. Applicability of section to Calcutta police. -Old section 172 was extended to the commissioner of police and the police in the town of Calcutta.1 Previously sections 162 and 172 did not apply to the Calcutta police.2 Where a diary was prepared under section 47 (a) of the Calcutta Sub-urban Police Act no privilege attached to it and section 172 had no application and, therefore, the accused person would be entitled to use those statements recorded by the police officer of witnesses who had been examined in the case, to contradict those witnesses who had given evidence before the Magistrate under section 145 of the Evidence Act. It was immaterial in a criminal case on whose behalf it was put in.3 It was held that it could not be said that special provisions for investigation applicable to the Presidency town of Calcutta barring the application of this section constituted a contravention of article 14 of the Constitution.4 3. Special diary (i) Object. - The "diary" referred to in section 172(1) is known as the special diary. The object of the special diaries or case diaries under section 172 is that the Magistrate or Judge before whom a case comes up for investigation or trial should have the means of ascertaining what was the information, true, false or misleading which was obtained from day to day by the police officer who was investigating the case and what were the lines of investigation upon which the police officer acted. 5 (ii) Entry of what-Statement of witnesses not to be entered.- The proceedings which the special police diary should contain are not exhaustively stated in the section.6 Statements of witnesses under section 161 are not to be entered in the special diary.7 Section 172 does not deal with the recording of any statement of witnesses. What is intended to be recorded under that section is what the police officer did at the places where he went, the people he visited and what he saw, etc.8 But the fact that the accused was examined by the police officer, and the circumstances

ascertained from the examination, may be entered in the diary.9 In Shamsul Kanwar , the Supreme Court emphasises that the case diary is only a record of day-to-day investigation of the investigating officer to ascertain the statement of circumstances ascertained through investigation.10 Under this provision read with rule 164 of Bihar Police Manual an investigating officer is under an obligation to record all day to day proceedings and information in his case diary and also record the time at which information was received and a place visited by him, besides site plan and other documents.11 (iii) Recovery of articles not mentioned in diary-Effect. - See AIR 1950 Ajmer 44 : 51 Cr LJ 1301. (iv) Personal diary of non-investigating officer excluded.- Entries made in a personal diary by a police officer who did not investigate into a case do not fall within section 172.12 (v) Diaries to be properly kept.- Though police diaries are not evidence against the accused, it is very essential for criminal trials that they should be properly kept in the manner provided by the Code.13 But the failure of the police witnesses to keep a diary as required by section 172(1) does not have the effect of making their evidence inadmissible although it lays it open to adverse criticism and may diminish its value.14 (a) Non-compliance with the provisions. - Failure on the part of the investigating officer to comply with the provisions of section 172 is a serious lapse which diminishes the value and credibility of the investigation. But it will not affect the finding of guilt unless prejudice to the accused is shown.15 (vi) Diaries how to be maintained and entries how to be made?- The haphazard maintenance of a document of the status of a case diary not only does no credit to those responsible for maintaining it but defeats the very purpose for which it is required to be maintained. Courts think it to be of the utmost importance that entries in a police case diary should be made with promptness, in sufficient detail, mentioning all significant facts in careful chronological order and with complete objectivity.16 Entries in case diaries must be made with scrupulous completeness and efficiency. (vii) Making false entries in diaries-Offence.- Where a public servant makes a false entry in a diary kept and sent to his superior in pursuance of a departmental order which that public servant is bound to obey, he is guilty of an offence under section 177, I.P.C.17 4. Power of criminal court to send for diaries and use thereof [Subsection (2)].- Prosecution is not expected to produce daily diary in courts as a matter of course. Such production would seriously impair the working of the police. If required for defence they can be summoned on the application

of defence.18 (i) No general order by Sessions Judge.- Sessions Judges should not issue general orders that police diaries should be sent to them along with the Magistrate's records in all cases committed for trial, and in all criminal appeals. They can only order for diaries of cases undertrial before them, if they think it necessary to peruse them.19 (ii) Court may send for diary of counter-case.- Section 172 relates to the police diary made in respect of a case under enquiry or trial by the court which calls for it and, therefore, does not in terms apply where the diary relates to the counter-case, but the principles apply. There is no provision in the Code which would prevent the court from looking into the diary of the counter-case, or from using it in the way laid down in section 172(2).20 (iii) No use of police diaries as evidence. -Police diaries are not original evidence of the matters contained in them.21 But they can be put in evidence, if the persons who wrote them are called as witnesses to prove the facts contained in such reports.22 A Judge should not take judicial notice of police papers, and he should not consult them 'in order to test evidence' in the case.23 The diary kept under section 172, cannot be used as containing entries which can by themselves be taken to be evidence of any date, fact or statement contained in it.24 Under section 172 the police diary cannot be used by any court as a substantive evidence but is intended to be used only for the purpose of assisting the court in the appreciation of the evidence and to clear up any doubtful point arising in the course of the case.25 A Judge is in error in making use of the police diaries at all in his judgment and in seeking confirmation of his opinion on the question of appreciation of evidence from statements contained in those diaries.26 To disbelieve the story of the defence only because it is nowhere mentioned in the Zimnis, amounts to making use of the Zimnis in such a way as to strengthen the case for the prosecution and to show that the rival story told by the defence is untrue, a course forbidden by the provisions of the Cr.P.C.27 The court should not draw any inference from an inspection of the police papers. If any use is to be made of them, they should be brought on the record and an opportunity given to the party against whom they are to be used of meeting them.28 The case diary cannot be used as evidence as that is not the evidence.29 The police case diary can be used within the limits of section 172. If there is no proof in the case, the police diary cannot take the place of proof. Any fact mentioned in the police diary cannot be used as evidence in the case. Entries in the diary can utmost be said secondary evidence and are neither substantive evidence nor corroborative evidence.30 The court is not justified in reading the confession and other statements from the police diary and to disbelieve the prosecution or the defence case

on that ground.31 (iv) Use only as aid to court . -The power of court under section 172 to look into case diaries should be sparingly exercised32 and it is necessary for the court to be astute to avoid using it otherwise than as provided by law.33 Under section 172, any criminal court may send for the special police diary of a case under inquiry or trial in such court, and may use the diary "not as evidence, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial". It may, for instance, be of importance in case that the court should know when a witness first made a statement in connection with the case, or whether any particular person made or did not make a statement.34 In Khatri, the Supreme Court observes that sub-section (2) of section 172, empowers a criminal court holding an inquiry or trial of a case to send for the police diary of the case and the criminal court can use such diary not as evidence in the case, but to aid in such inquiry or trial.35 The meaning of the phrase "to aid the court in an enquiry or a trial" in this section is that the court may see from the police diaries what is the general trend of evidence to be given and what witnesses are important and what not, and whether witnesses produced give evidence as to all the facts which they formerly professed to know.36 As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Shamsul Kanwar , where neither the prosecution witnesses nor the court uses the case diary, the free use thereof for contradicting the prosecution evidence is obviously illegal and it is inadmissible in evidence. Thereby the defence cannot place reliance thereon.37 (a) Permissible use of police diary? -The police diary may be used by the court for the following purposes : ( i ) The court is entitled to use the special diary to ascertain the sources and lines of enquiry and the names of persons that may be in a position to give material evidence. The special diary may be used by the court in inquiries or trials as suggesting means of further elucidating points which need clearing up and which are material for doing justice between the prosecution and the accused.38 ( ii ) The object of police diary is to enable the court to see the information recorded from day to day and the lines of investigation of a particular case.39 The main purpose of the police diary is to aid the court in trial. That shows when investigation began, when closed places visited and the circumstances ascertained in the investigation. Any other use of the entries in case diary is not undesirable.40 ( iii ) Though the entries in a case diary are not substantive evidence, but the court may look into it for aid in the inquiry or trial.41 They are only to be

used as is pointed out by the section, not as evidence, but to aid a court on the trial, so as to enable it to make a thorough enquiry on all material points by eliciting in the examination of the witness-and expecially of police witnesses-the real facts of the case.42 ( iv ) The court should discover out of the diary any matter which is important, and then call for the necessary witnesses or documents to prove that matter. The court should then deal with the case on all the evidence.43 ( v ) The court may use the diaries for the purpose of clearing up obscurities in the evidence so as to bring out relevant facts in the interests of a fair trial.44 The aid which a court can receive from the entries in such a diary is usually confined to utilising the information given therein as a foundation for questions to be put to the witness and in using the diary the court should always employ very great caution.45 Where after the verdict was given, the Judge stated that he would look at the police diaries before deciding whether he would refer the case under section 307, and having done so, he accepted the verdict and convicted the accused, the reference to the police diaries was permitted, under section 172, and there was nothing illegal in the course adopted.46 (b) Power of High Court under section 482 to look into police diaries.- When an application under section 482 of the Code for quashing proceedings of the lower court is made to the High Court at an early stage of the proceedings, the High Court is entitled to look into the police diaries for determining whether any case has been made out or not, and that in order to determine the correctness of affidavits on record it is necessary to look into them.47 (c) Use of recorded statement not forbidden.- Section 172 does not forbid a recorded statement to be used at a trial for an offence not under investigation when it was made.48 (d) Comparing with Confession recorded by Magistrate.- The confession recorded by a Magistrate cannot be compared with the record of it in the case diary to determine its value.49 (v) Production of daily diary.- Prosecution cannot be expected to produce daily diaries as a matter of course in every prosecution case. Production of these diaries will impair the functioning of police. It is neither desirable nor feasible to produce them. If needed they can be summoned.50 5. Police diaries can be used to contradict police officer.- The special diary may be used by the court to contradict the police officer who made it, and the police officer who made it may refresh his memory by referring to it.51 The object of section 172(3) is to enable the court to direct the police officer who is giving his evidence to refresh his memory from the notes made by him or to question him as to contradictions which may appear

between statements so recorded and the evidence he is giving in court.52 The words 'if the court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall apply' used in section 172(3) are important and they regulate the procedure and the power which can be exercised about the matter. Without confronting the police officer who had prepared the diary in terms of section 161 of the Evidence Act, the diary cannot be used.53 In Mukand Lal, the Supreme Court has pointed out that the court is empowered to call for relevant case diary if there is any inconsistency or contradiction arising in the context of the case diary and the court can use the entries for the purpose of contradicting the police officer as provided in sub-section (3) of section 172.54 (i) No use by or against any witness other than police officer.- A special diary cannot be used by any other witness than the police officer who made it for the purpose of refreshing his memory, nor can it be used to contradict any witness other than such police officer.55 (ii) No use of police diary as corroborative evidence. -The Code permits the court to use the diary for the limited purpose of contradicting the police officer and not for the purpose of corroborating him.56 Police diaries cannot be admitted as corroborative evidence against the accused in the case.57 Statements of witnesses made to the police and recorded in the special diary, can be used as corroborative evidence in the trial, only if the police officer who took them down, is called upon to give evidence of their purport, and of the time when and the circumstances in which, they were made, refreshing his memory from the diary if he desires to do so.58 Any fact mentioned in the police diary cannot be used to corroborate any evidence in the case.59 (iii) No use to prejudice of accused. - Judge should not use the police diary to the prejudice of the accused. Even if the defence requests the Judge of examine the police diary, that would not justify him in using it to the prejudice of the accused.60 (iv) Police officer whether can be compelled to refresh memory? -An accused person is not entitled to require a police officer to refresh his memory during his examination in court, by referring to his diary.61 The use of the diary for refreshing memory is at the discretion of the witness and the Judge.62 It may be within the rights of the police officers not to refer to a diary, but the accused is entitled to the benefit of their refusal to refer to the diary and to disclose the source of their information.63 The court is, no doubt, not bound to compel a witness to look at the diary in

order to refresh his memory.64 But if it invites him to refresh his memory with reference to the diary, the witness is under an obligation to do so, it being his duty to lay the whole truth before the court to the best of his ability.65 Should the police officer refuse to assist the court in this way, he would not only be failing in his duty both as a witness and as an officer or public servant, but would also be liable to exactly the same penalty as any other witness who refuses to give evidence which is within his knowledge and is not affected by any particular claim of privilege. It is not open to witness to decide for himself whether or not he should disclose a material fact which might turn the scale in deciding whether an accused person was guilty or innocent, when he is in a position to clear up a point by reference to his diary.66 Where the investigating officer in his cross-examination was asked to state various dates on which he had examined prosecution witnesses in course of investigation but he stated that it was not necessary to refer to diary, the court should have compelled him to refer to the diary and on account of such conduct of investigating officer accused were somewhat prejudiced.67 (v) Right of accused to call for and inspect police diaries.- It is the court alone which is entitled to use the special diary. Neither the accused nor his agent is entitled under section 172 to see the special diary for any purpose unless it has been used by the court for enabling the police officer who made it to refresh his memory or for the purpose of contradicting him.68 A party having a right to look into a document before or at the moment it is used by a witness to refresh his memory, and not exercising it at the proper moment, does not continue to retain it throughout the subsequent examination of the witness.69 In an Oudh case, it has been held that an accused had no right to inspect the original paper by which the police was refreshing his memory.70 It has been held that there is nothing in the law which entitles the defence to an inspection of anything more than that portion of the diary from which the witness refreshed his memory.71 In Khatri, the Supreme Court clarifies that by reason of sub-section (3) of section 172, Cr.P.C. merely because the case diary is referred to by the criminal court, neither the accused nor his agents are entitled to call for such diary nor are they entitled to see it.72 The accused can see the entries relating to the case made by the police officer in the case diary only when the police officer uses it for refreshing memory or when the court uses it to contradict the police officer.73 When the police diary is used for refreshing memory by the police officer or the court uses it for contradicting the police officer, then the provisions of sections 161 and 145 of the Evidence Act apply.74 In Mukand Lal, the Supreme Court categorically states that the Legislature has reposed complete trust in the court which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. It has empowered the court

to call for any such relevant case diary, if there is any inconsistency or contradiction arising in the context to the case diary, the court can use the entries for the purpose of contradiction. Ultimately there can be no better custodian or guardian of the interest of the justice than the court trying the case. No court will deny to itself the power to make use of entries in the diary to the advantage of the accused by contradicting the police officer with reference to the contents of the diaries. In view of the safeguard the charge of unreasonableness or arbitrariness cannot stand scrutiny. If the accused claims an unfettered right to make roving inspection of the entries in the case diary regardless of whether the entries are used by the police officer to refresh his memory or regardless of the fact whether the court has used these entries for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, he cannot base his claim on sub-section (3) of the section. The accused can claim this right but only when the police officer uses the case diary for refreshing his memory or the court uses it for contradicting the police officer.75 In Malkiat Singh, the Supreme Court points out that where the evidence on record clearly shows that the defence has freely used the entries in the case diary as evidence and marked some portions of the diary for contradictions or omissions in the prosecution case, it is clearly in negation of and in the teeth of section 173(3).76 To conclude, therefore, the accused can only see the diary if it is used by the police officer to refresh his memory or if the court uses it to contradict the police officer. If there is no special diary, there can be no case of refreshing memory or contradicting the police officer by the diary. The absence of the diary, therefore, cannot prejudice the accused.77 (vi) Permitting defence counsel to see portions of police diary for use in defence of case-Court's discretion.- Though an accused person is not entitled as of right to see the case diary and his statement to the police recorded in it, there is no prohibition contained in section 172(3) against the court permitting in its discretion defending counsel to see any portion of the case diary, which the court considers in the interests of justice he should see and use in the defence of the case. There is no legal impediment to the committing court permitting in its discretion and in appropriate cases defending counsel at his request to look into a case diary to verify what the accused told the police as recorded there, before formulating his defence. Under the law as it now stands, such a permission cannot be claimed by the accused as a matter of right. It is comparatively of little use for defending counsel being permitted to look at the diary by the Sessions Judge at a belated stage of the trial. Defending counsel should know what the accused told the police in the first instance. There is a heavy responsibility on the courts in the user of case diaries under section 172(3) and on public

prosecutors to bring to the notice of the trial Judge anything in the case diary favourable to the accused.78 In Khatri, the Supreme Court has laid down that if the case diary is used by the police officer who has made it to refresh his memory or if the criminal court uses it for the purpose of contradicting such police officer in inquiry or trial, the provisions of sections 161 and 145, as the case may be, of Indian Evidence Act would apply and the accused would be entitled to see the particular entry in the case diary which has been referred to for either of these purposes and so much of the diary as in the opinion of the court is necessary to a full understanding of the particular entry so used.79 6. Statements of witnesses recorded in special diary not covered by section 172.- Where a police officer records in the special diary statements of witnesses, taken under section 161, the privilege given by this section does not extend to those statements.80 Such statements can be used for the purposes of section 162.81 A police diary is normally meant for a police officer investigating a criminal case for recording therein his day to day noting regarding the investigation, but he is not debarred from recording the statement of any witness therein and so the privilege in the matter of calling a police diary by an accused person or his agent contemplated under section 172 of the Code extends only to the notings recorded by a police officer therein and not to the supply of copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded therein as those statements will be covered by subsection (3) of section 161 of the Code.82 7. Right to copy of statements in police diaries.- Section 172 does not forbid a recorded statement to be used at a trial for an offence not under investigation when it was made. There is, however, no doubt that the record of a statement heard by a police officer in exercise of the power conferred by section 161 of the Code and recorded either in the diary or separately in the course of investigation proceedings is an unpublished official record relating to an affair of State, evidence derived from which cannot be produced in a case to which the first proviso to section 162 is not applicable, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the police department. It cannot in any sense be termed a deposition and it is not evidence. It is not a document a copy of which must be given on demand under the provision of section 76, Evidence Act.83 Where the investigating agency has recorded the statement of a witness more than once, in that case copies of every statement must be supplied to the accused, because there may be material contradictions in the same.84 But in AIR 1940 Lah 217 (224) , the diary of a foot constable who was shadowing the movements of a suspect was held not an affair of the State. 8. Evidentiary value of entries in police diary.- A police diary may be an official document, and the entries therein are worth what they are, but

they cannot surely be accepted to be absolutely correct for all purposes, in the absence of any definite proof. There may be circumstances which might seriously challenge their correctness. An entry in a record or a document made by a person for his own benefit even if admissible should not always be taken without scanning; other circumstances have to be considered along with the entry.85 Entry as to time of F.I.R. must be presumed to be true.86 Entries of the police diary are neither substantive nor corroborative evidence.87 ________________________________________________________ 1. See comments under section 154 in Vol. 1. 2. 33 CWN 203 : AIR 1929 Cal 257. 3. AIR 1924 Cal 542 : 24 Cr LJ 757. 4. See AIR 1955 Cal 138 : 1955 Cr LJ 441. 5. 19 All 390 : 16 CWN 145. See also Shamsul Kanwar v. State of U.P., 1995 (3) AWC 1486 (SC) : 1995 (19) ACR 577, on what this diary referred to in section 172 is known as in different States and how is it maintained. 6. 20 Cal 642 (648). 7. Per Bannerji and Aikman, JJ., in 19 All 390. See also LBR (1893-1900) 47 ; 8 Cal 739 ; 20 Cal 642 ; 16 Cal 610 ; 16 Cal 612 (N) ; UBR (1897-1901), p. 29 and 33 Cal 1023. 8. 31 CWN 940 : 28 Cr LJ 805 : AIR 1927 Cal 644 : 13 Rang 570 (581) : AIR 1935 Rang 370 (FB) ; AIR 1928 Cal 260 : 32 CWN 980 ; 45 IC 277 ; 32 Cr LJ 638 : AIR 1931 Pat 150 : 12 Pat LT 393. 9. LBR (1893-1900), 47. 10. Shamsul Kanwar v. State of U.P., 1995 (3) AWC 1486 (SC) : 1995 (19) ACR 577 : 1995 (2) Crimes 487 (SC). 11. Baleshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar, 1997 Cr LJ 4084 (SC) : 1997 (3) Crimes 169 (SC). 12. 85 IC 723 : 26 Cr LJ 579 : AIR 1925 Cal 959. 13. 39 PR 1867 (Cri) : 150 IC 1056. 14. 74 IA 80 : AIR 1947 PC 75, followed in ILR (1954) Nag 922 : AIR 1955 Nag 121. 15. Baleshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar, 1997 Cr LJ 4084 (SC) : 1997 (3) Crimes 169 (SC). 16. Sri Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, 1983 Cr LJ 1081

(SC) : AIR 1983 SC 826 : (1983) 3 SCC 344 : (1983) 2 SCWR 820 : (1983) 2 Crimes 480 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 637. 17. 4 Mad 144 : 1 Weir 108. 18. Kalpnath Rai v. State, 1998 Cr LJ 369 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 201 : 1997 AIR SCW 4166 : 1998 (36) ACrC 48 : 1998 (1) Chand Cri C 166 : 1998 (1) All Cri LR 10 : 1997 (4) SCJ 318 : (1997) 8 SCC 732 : JT 1997 (90) 18 : 1997 (6) Scale 689 : 1997 (9) Supreme 293 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 134 : 1998 (3) Cur Cri R 37 : 1997 (4) Rec Cri R 788 : 1998 Cri App R (SC) 33 : 1997 (4) Crimes 227 : 1998 (1) East Cri C 216. 19. 19 All 390 : 1897 AWN 174. See also 1894 AWN 155 and 181. 20. ILR (1944) 1 Cal 133 : AIR 1944 Cal 243. 21. 2 Weir 143 ; 1894 AWN 118 ; 10 CWN 600 (603) ; 1894 AWN 155 ; 1883 AWN 145. 22. 2 Weir 142. 23. 8 WR 35 (36) (Cri). See also 1929 MWN 587. 24. AIR 1917 PC 25 : 44 Cal 876 (889) : 44 IA 137, approving 19 All 390 (FB) : 66 IC 187 : 13 Rang 570 (FB) ; 23 PLT 387 : AIR 1942 Pat 90 ; ILR (1944) 1 Cal 133 : AIR 1944 Cal 243 ; 58 CWN 597. 25. 2 PLT 223 : 22 Cr LJ 374 ; AIR 1927 Cal 644 : 31 CWN 940 ; 1883 AWN 137 : 26 Cr LJ 579 (581) : AIR 1925 Cal 959. 26. Habeeb Mohammad v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 Cr LJ 338 : 1953 SCJ 678 : AIR 1954 SC 51. 27. 27 Cr LJ 517 (2) : AIR 1926 Lah 485. See also 25 Cr LJ 409 : AIR 1923 Lah 516. 28. 1935 AWR 1148. 29. Gurucharan Singh v. State, 1985 Cr LJ (NOC) 56 (Del) ; A.H. Abdulla v. State of Kerala, 1981 Cr LJ NOC 55 (Ker) ; State of Kerala v. Ammini, 1988 Cr LJ 107 (Ker-FB) ; Om Prakash v. State, 1980 Cr LJ (NOC) 67 (Del). 30. Brahmadeo Hazra v. State of Bihar, 1988 Cr LJ 734 (Pat) : 1987 Pat LJR (HC) 826 : 1987 East Cri C 726. 31. Narayanan v. Krishnan, 1981 Cr LJ 563 (Ker) ; 1999 Cr LJ 1078 (Ori). 32. 1929 MWN 587. 33. AIR 1933 Pat 589. 34. Per page, C.J., 13 R. 570 (580), referring to observations of Edge, C.J.,

in 19 All 390 (395). See also AIR 1936 Rang 75 : 37 Cr LJ 414. 35. Khatri v. State of Bihar, 1981 Cr LJ 597 (SC) : AIR 1981 SC 1068 : (1981) 2 SCC 493 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 503 : (1981) 2 SCJ 122 : (1981) 3 SCR 145. 36. 1 PWR 1914 (Cri). 37. Shamsul Kanwar v. State of U.P., 1995 (3) AWC 1486 (SC) : 1995 (19) ACR 577 : 1995 (2) Crimes 487 (SC). 38. 44 Cal 876 : 44 IA 137 ; AIR 1933 Lah 498 : 19 All 390 ; 23 PLT 387 : AIR 1942 Pat 90 ; ILR (1944) 1 Cal 133 : AIR 1944 Cal 243. 39. 16 CWN 145 : 13 Cr LJ 65. 40. State of Kerala v. Ammini, 1988 Cr LJ 107 (Ker-FB) : AIR 1988 Ker 1 : (1987) 1 Ker LT 928. 41. Gurucharan Singh v. State, 1985 Cr LJ (NOC) 56 (Del). 42. 27 Cal 295 (305) : 4 CWN 129. 43. 10 CWN 600 (601) : 3 Cr LJ 408. 44. AIR 1926 Lah 54 : 26 Cr LJ 1308. 45. 28 Cr LJ 134 : AIR 1927 Oudh 64. See also AIR 1933 Pat 440. 46. 56 Cal 150 : AIR 1929 Cal 57. 47. 55 PLR 77 : AIR 1953 Punj 149. 48. AIR 1957 Raj 185 : ILR (1957) 7 Raj 693, following AIR 1936 Lah 359. 49. Ammini v. State of Kerala, 1998 Cr LJ 481 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 260 : 1997 AIR SCW 4231 : 1998 (36) ACrC 156 : 1998 (1) All Cri LR 33 : 1998 Mad LJ (Cri) 379 : 1998 (1) SCJ 437 : (1998) 2 SCC 301 : 1998 UP Cri R 202 : 1997 (9) Supreme 394 : 1998 Cri LR (SC) 61 : 1997 (7) Scale 43 : 1998 (22) ACrR 322 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 618 : 1998 (1) Cur Cri R 6 : 1998 (1) Rec Cri R 429 : 1997 (4) Crimes 131 : 1998 (1) East Cri C 1. 50. Kalpnath Rai v. State, 1998 Cr LJ 369 (SC) : AIR 1998 SC 201 : 1997 AIR SCW 4166 : 1998 (36) ACrC 48 : 1998 (1) Chand Cri C 166 : 1998 (1) All Cri LR 10 : 1997 (4) SCJ 318 : (1997) 8 SCC 732 : JT 1997 (90) 18 : 1997 (6) Scale 689 : 1997 (9) Supreme 293 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 134 : 1998 (3) Cur Cri R 37 : 1997 (4) Rec Cri R 788 : 1998 Cri App R (SC) 33 : 1997 (4) Crimes 227 : 1998 (1) East Cri C 216. 51. 19 All 390. 52. AIR 1926 Lah 54 : 26 Cr LJ 1308.

53. 1958 Cr LJ 1 : AIR 1958 All 1. 54. Mukand Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 144 ; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, I.A.S., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222. 55. 19 All 390 : 1897 AWN 174 (FB), approved of by the Privy Council in 44 Cal 876 ; 44 IA 137 (PC). 56. 2 Pat LT 223 : 22 Cr LJ 374. 57. 13 WR 22 (Cri) : AIR 1931 Pat 96 ; 1883 AWN 37 : 15 Cr LJ 256 : 1 LW 229. 58. 7 CPLR 22 (23) (Cri). 59. Brahmadeo Hazara v. State of Bihar, 1988 Cr LJ 734 (Pat) : 1987 Pat LJR (HC) 826 : 1987 East Cri C 726. 60. AIR 1946 Pat 127 : 48 Cr LJ 165. 61. 8 Cal 154 ; AIR 1932 Lah 103. 62. AIR 1932 Lah 103. 63. 6 Pat LT 810 : AIR 1925 Pat 131. 64. 8 Cal 739 (745). 65. 13 ALJ 76 : AIR 1921 All 86. See also AIR 1924 Pat 829. But see 95 IC 277 (280) (court cannot compel witness to refer to diary). 66. ILR (1942) Lah 470 : AIR 1942 Lah 89. 67. 1956 AWR (HC) 589 : 1956 ALJ 833. 68. 13 Rang 570 : AIR 1935 Rang 370 (FB), following 19 All 390 ; 26 Cr LJ 297 : AIR 1925 Pat 339. See also AIR 1933 Lah 498. 69. 8 Cal 739. 70. 13 OC 7 : 5 IC 357. 71. 2 Pat 74 (75). 72. Khatri v. State of Bihar, 1981 Cr LJ 597 (SC) : AIR 1981 SC 1068 : (1981) 2 SCC 493. 73. Gurucharan Singh v. State, 1985 Cr LJ (NOC) 56 (Del) ; Om Prakash v. State, 1980 Cr LJ (NOC) 67 (Del). 74. Subhash Chandra v. Union of India, 1988 Cr LJ 1077 (Raj) : (1987) 1 Rajasthan LR 269 : (1987) 3 Crimes 159. 75. Mukand Lal v. Union of India, 1989 Cr LJ 872 (SC) : AIR 1989 SC 144 :

(1989) 1 SCWR 17. 76. Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 341. 77. AIR 1931 Pat 150 (151) : 12 PLT 393. 78. 1952 MWN 608 : (1952) 2 MLJ 186. 79. Khatri v. State of Bihar, 1981 Cr LJ 597 (SC) : AIR 1981 SC 1068 : (1981) 2 SCC 493. 80. UBR (1897-1901), p. 29, See also LBR (1893-1900), 47 ; 20 Cal 642 ; 1896 AWN 193. 81. See note under section 162, supra 82. S.J. Chowdhary v. State, 1984 Cr LJ 864 (Del) : (1984) 1 Crimes 717 : (1984) Rajdhani LR 245 : (1984) All Cri LR 404. 83. 17 Lah 472 : AIR 1936 Lah 359 ; 19 All 390 (406) (FB). 84. S.J. Chowdhary v. State, 1984 Cr LJ 864 (Del) : (1984) 1 Crimes 717 : (1984) Rajdhani LR 245 : (1984) All Cri LR 404. 85. 1956 Cr LJ 1283 : AIR 1956 Ass 170. 86. AIR 1957 All 809. 87. Brahmadeo Hazra v. State of Bihar, 1988 Cr LJ 734 (Pat) : 1987 Pat LJR (HC) 826 : 1987 East Cri C 726.

Disclaimer

The views and comments expressed in the present category are those of the Author. These should not be taken to reflect the views of the organisation. Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd. expressly disclaims all responsibility for any loss, injury, liability or damage of any kind resulting from and arising out of, or any way related to the Content.