Intellectual Property Rights: Practice and Drafting by Adv Gautam Matani. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

sumanta (service)     02 July 2011

Section 161 Cr.P.C

whether statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of seizure witness is mandatory. If it was not recorded, whether he will be allowed to give evidence beyond seizure article i.e. knowledge of any offence


 9 Replies

adv. rajeev ( rajoo ) (practicing advocate)     02 July 2011

Seizure wittness is mandatory, if there is no seizure wittness then it is good defense to an accused.

1 Like

Arvind Singh Chauhan (advocate)     02 July 2011

I do agree with Rajeev Sir.

1 Like

swayamjeet sharma (law)     02 July 2011

161 of examination of wittness by police..
in this if any police officer is investigatng any case he can take oral examination of any wittness,and that person should answer all qusetion trully except which impose him in a criminal charge,and if the police officer want he can note down writing..this si what section says and absoulety right what is said by rajeev sir...

1 Like

Ravikant Soni (LAWYER IN JAIPUR)     02 July 2011

It is not binding to a investigating offiece to write down statement of everty witness he interrogated. 161 of Cr.P.C. does not make any binding effect to record statemest in writing. it may be oral..

1 Like

Om Prakash Dhusia (HR assistant)     02 July 2011

Dear Sumanta: With apogies I differ with all the experts here. Because Indian Laws are such, one gets confused and for a simplest of answer would be  forced to spend his valuable time and money but the answer would not be there. The 161 CrPC does speak of statement by PW's to police orally but police writes it which but all the times is fabrication by police to suit their fiction but whatever Investigating officer writes in CD is not acceptable as EVIDENCE in the court and irony is that if  PW does not speak what is written in the statement recorded by police then he is treated to be a HOSTILE to the  prosecution and subject to Examination-in-chief, in other words he would be Cross-Exmamined by the Prosecution as being done by the Defence, with the permission of court. But smart or corrupt PROSECUTION do not declare him hostile because they know that he can damage their case, so remain silent. But no matter if the PW says that he did not give any statement to police at all and surprised by his name as such but it would not be acceptable and if he gives entire different story not supporting the Prosecution then BIASED JUDGE which are 99% at present juncture would discard his statement for favoring the accused. It is the fact of the life.

The case in the court do not have any importance of EVIDENCE but it is the MANIPULATION by either PROSECUTION or THE DEFENCE but the COURT always remain to the side of PROSECUTION. It is another matter if Prosecution fails in his attempt  or the DEFENCE was expert manipulator than the prosecution.

If you are new and do not know the intricacies of the law then seizure of telcum powder can be manipulated to being DRUG, no matter even if the Forensic proves it the reverse. It is the Judge to decide the GUILT of the accused and not the EVIDENCE because even if the TRIAL JUDGE convicts an innocent, he can never be taken to task in the HIGHER COURTS and these TEMPLES OF JUSTICE do not pass any stricures s on the TRIAL JUSGE simply with an Hindi Proverb which says: CHOR CHOR MAUSERE BHAYI means all the theives are cousins.


1 Like

Ravikant Soni (LAWYER IN JAIPUR)     06 July 2011


161. Examination of witnesses by police.


(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.



(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case Put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.


(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.

Om Prakash Dhusia (HR assistant)     07 July 2011

I have stated the facts and not what the sections says because our Indian laws have many loop holes which can be manipulated to suit one's requirement. Once an Investigating officer always writes whatever he likes to then the man becomes PW even if he likes it or not and  is bound to give the same oration which have been written by the IO and if he doesn't speak the same narration then declared HOSTILE by the prosecution/court.

Let him shout from the roof  that he never gave any statement to police ever but he would be subjected to Examination-in-chief  if declared HOSTILE and if he doesn't support the prosecution theory then his depositions are negated by millions of Judges in Indian Courts and we have faced the same u/s 364,302,201IPC case.


Siv (engineer)     11 July 2011

Dear Sirs,

CrPC-161 statement lapes are good for th Accused provided Accused done crime.... Bur

CrPC-161 statements alpses are bad for the Accused to approach the High Court with quash petition and for proper investigation to close the case at early stage. ...


Hence I recomend good investigation with fill CrPC-161 statement to cathc the culrpits at the early stage.

Siv (engineer)     11 July 2011

One very good citation from the Full Bench of Culcuta High Court ....



A.K. Roy vs State Of West Bengal on 4 October, 1961

Equivalent citations: AIR 1962 Cal 135, 66 CWN 697

Author: S Sen

Bench: S Sen, N Sen,

109. In my view therefore the first part of the question, referred to this Full Bench should be answered in the

negative and the second al ternative in that question should be answered in the affirmative and the third

alternative in the question partly in affirmative and partly in nega tive thus:

(i) When the police upon investigation has submitted a final report under Section 173 Cr. P. C., a Magistrate cannot direct the police to submit a charge-sheet.

(ii) The Magistrate can take cognizance on the statement of facts contained in final report, it those facts constitute, in the opinion of the Magistrate, an offence.

(iii) For the purpose of deciding whether cognizance of an offence should be taken, the Magistrate can look into the materials contained in the case diary and obtained during investiga tion, including statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. but he cannot take cognizance and issue process against the accused on the materials con tained


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register