DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA,

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

2015-2016

LAW OF EVIDENCE

[PROJECT WORK]

ON

RECORDING OF STATEMENTS AND CONFESSIONS

SUBMITTED FOR THE PROJECT WORK UNDERTAKEN IN THE PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) 5 YEARS INTEGRATED COURSE OF DR. RAM
MANOHAR LOHIYA NLU, LUCKNOW

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MR. A.P. SINGH TANU SHRIVASTAVA

MR. VIPUL VINOD ROLL NO.-144; SECTION-B

DR. RMLNLU, LUCKNOW BA.LLB. (H); SEMESTER- V

1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I want to express uncommon much obliged and appreciation to my educator Mr. A.P. Singh and
Mr. Vipul Vinod who gave me the brilliant chance to finalize this glorious research subject i.e.
‘Recording of Statements and Confessions.

This project helped me pick up a major viewpoint about the Project Topic. All through the
exploration period, I have been guided by my educator at whatever point I confronted any
obstacles or was in a state of daze not having the capacity to resolve the intricacies of the
subject. 
I want to thank my University, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University, Lucknow, for
giving me the opportunity to be a part of a novel exploration turned educational program which
without a doubt helps the comprehension of the subject. 

I likewise want to thank my guardians, guides and well-wishers who have been a consistent
underpin and have sufficient energy and again looked into my work and have give their
experiences on the matter.

2
INDEX

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..….4

2. Requirements of Section 164, CrPC…………………………………………………….…4

3. Applicability of the Section…………………………………………………………….….5

4. Constitutional Validity……………………………………………………………….……6

5. Distinction between ‘Confession and Statement’ ……………………………………….7

6. Conditions essential for recording confession……………………………………….…..9

7. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….15

8. Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..17

3
INTRODUCTION

Section 164 of Indian Evidence Act deals with the recording of confessions and other statements.
While a confession so recorded can be used as substantive evidence, a non-confessional
statement is not substantive evidence. If the maker of a non-confessional statement recorded
under this section is called as a witness in the trial, then his earlier statement can be used for
corroborating or contradicting his testimony in the court under S. 157 or S. 145 of the Evidence
Act. And the wordings in S. 157 clearly help the court. The Supreme Court has pointed out that
the expressions' 'at or about the time when the fact took place" in S. 157 should be understood in
the context according to the facts and circumstances of each case. The mere fact that there was
an intervening period of a few days, in a given case, may not be sufficient to exclude the
statement from the use envisaged in S. 1571.
Sec. 164 is the protective measure, as it itself contains warning o the accused by the Magistrate
before making the confessional statement. There are two reasons for recording the statement of
witness under section 164, first: to deter the witness from changing his stand by resoling from his
recorded statement and secondly: to tide over the immunity from prosecution by the witness
under section 164.

REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 164, CRPC

This section is not exhaustive and does not limit the generality of section 21 of the Evidence Act
as to the relevancy of the admissions. The effect of the section 164, when read with section
24,25,26 and 29 of the Evidence Act, is that: A confession made by an accused to a police officer
is inadmissible in evidence; If a person in police custody desires to make a confession, he must
do that in the presence of the Magistrate; A magistrate shall not record it unless he is, upon
inquiry from the person making it satisfied that it is voluntary; When the magistrate records it, he
shall record it in the manner provided in the Section; and Only when so recorded the confession
becomes relevant and admissible in evidence

The requirements of Section 164 of the Code and the rules are intended to ensure that the
confession should be voluntary and free from any sort of inducement or pressure from any
quarters. The omission to put one of the questions as provided in Section 164 or the Rules is not

1
R.V. Kelkar; Criminal Procedure; Edi.4th (2004); Pg. 150.

4
sufficient to throw out a judicial confession, if the Court is otherwise satisfied, on a scrutiny of
the whole proceedings including the confessional statement, about its voluntariness. Necessity
for administering warning to the maker of the confession that the confession is not intended to
make him an approver, is to make him understand that the confession is likely to be used against
him in the trial. If the accused is informed about the consequences of making the confession with
sufficient clarity, mere omission to tell him, that the confession is not intended to make him an
approver, is not enough to treat the confession as vitiated. In the present case, the Sessions Judge
succeeded in tracing out just one omission, i.e., the omission to put the question whether the
accused knew that it was not intended to fake him an approver. Thus, the confession could not be
rejected on that omission alone.

The Magistrate is first required to explain to the accused that he was not bound to make a
confession and that if he did so, it might be used against him. Though this requirement has been
complied with in the instant case, the other requirement which obligates the Magistrate to put
questions to the accused to satisfy himself that the confession was voluntary so as to enable him
to give the requisite certificate under sub-section (4), has not been fulfilled for, the learned
Magistrate did not ask any question whatsoever to ascertain whether the appellant was making
the confession voluntarily in view of such flagrant omission to comply with the mandatory
requirement of Section 164 (2), Cr. P.C1.

APPLICABILITY OF THE SECTION

Section 164 does not apply to statements recorded by the Magistrate in answer to a notice under
section 161A of the Sea Customs Act, though such statements may be admissible in evidence
under Section 30 of the Evidence Act as decided in the case of Hrum Haji Abdullah Vs. State2.

Statements made before Customs Authorities are not inadmissible.

Statement recorded under Section 108, Customs Act, without complying with the provisions of
Section 164, Cr. P.C., is admissible.
Statement not sponsored by investigating agency cannot be recorded. Investigation pending-
Statement of the accused cannot be recorded at his instance to create evidence.

1
D.N. Sen; The Code of Criminal Procedure; Vol. 1 Edi. 2006; Pg. 572-73.

2
AIR 1968 SC 832.

5
The word confession has not been defined in the Evidence Act. It has been interpreted by the
jurists as the statement of the accused acknowledging his guilt of the offence with which he
stands charged. To make the confessional statement relevant and admissible, it is obligatory to
make that it was free and voluntary if these two tests are satisfied the same can be accepted as
evidence to base conviction. As decided in the case of P.K. Mohanty vs. State of Orissa, in order
to render the confession worthy of belief regard must be had to (i) the person to whom it was
made, (ii) the connection, if any, of the accused with him, (iii) the occasion or reason for the
accused to make such confession, and (iv) the circumstances in which it was made1.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY

Article 20(3) of the Constitution does not apply at all to a case where the confession is made
without any inducement, threat or promise. That being so there is no repugnancy between section
164 and Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

The provisions of Section 164, Cr. P.C., do not violate the provisions of Article 21 of the
Constitution. In a recent Calcutta case reported in Devdas v. State of West Benga2l, it has also
been repeated that of before making any confessional statement offering time to him for his
reflection and to ensure the accused before making such statement as to whether he was under
any coercion or duress by the of police is a special provision made by the legislature in its
wisdom and the Same does not come within the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and as such there is no militancy of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Section 164
of the Code.

Sec. 164 is the protective measure, as it itself contains warning o the accused by the Magistrate
before making the confessional statement. The provisions of S. 164 CrPC do not violate the
provisions of Art. 21 of the Constitution3

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ‘CONFESSION AND STATEMENT’

1
1996 CrLJ 375.

2
1996CrLJ 1441.

3
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal; The Code of Criminal Procedure; Edi. 18 th (2007); Pg.549.

6
Section 164 uses and refers to both the expressions ‘confessions and statements’. In other words,
the distinction between statements and confessions were kept in mind while enacting Section
164, Cr. P.C. It is well-settled that all confessions are statements but all statements are not
confessions. It may be recalled that the Legislature advisedly used the expression' 'statement"
while enacting Section 108 of the Customs Act authorizing the empowered authority to record
what the person summoned, states. A plain reading of Section 108 of the Customs Act, makes it
clear that it does not enable the empowered authority to record a confessional statement from a
person summoned there under. In the absence of any such power conferred under Section 108 of
the Customs Act, the empowered authority can only fall back upon Section 164, Cr. P.C., to
record a statement of confessional nature from the person summoned. As already stated, Section
164(2), Cr. P.c., enacts that the Magistrate while recording a confessional statement, must
administer the warning or caution to the person making the confessional statement, that the same
would be used against him. The same caution or warning, it follows, must also be administered
to the persons summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act by the empowering authority.
Non compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 164(2), Cr. P.c., is not
curable under Section 463, Cr. P.C., and renders the statement so recorded inadmissible in
evidence.

The word confession has not been defined in the code. It actually means an admission of certain
facts which constitutes an offence committed by a person charged with the offence which is
subject matter of the statement recorded under Section 164 as stated in the case of Palivinder
kaur vs. State1. It has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sahoo v. State2, that
confession is a statement admitting in terms of the offence or in substance the facts which
constitute that offence may be oral or in writing whether communicated or not. But a statement
merely suggesting an inference of a crime is not sufficient to constitute a confession. The
statement of a witness recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C., cannot be treated as substantive
evidence but is limited in its use to corroborate or contradict the witness whose statement was
recorded.

1
AIR 1952 SC354.

2
AIR 1966 SC 40.

7
STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES RECORDED UNDER SECTION 164: EVIDENTIARY
VALUE

The statement of the witness recorded under section cannot be regarded as a substantive piece of
evidence, can be used only to corroborate or contradict its makers. Statements recorded under
section are meant from contradicting the witness and not for corroboration. During the
investigation, the Police Officer sometimes feels it expedient to have the statement of a witness
recorded under Section 164, Cr. P.C. This happens when the witnesses to a crime are clearly
connected with the accused or where the accused are very influential which may result in the
witnesses being gained over. The mere fact that the Police had reasons to suspect that the
witnesses might be gained over and that it was expedient to have their statements recorded by the
Magistrate, would not make the statements of the witnesses their recorded tainted1.

SUB SECTION (2): CAUTION BY MAGISTRATE

This subsection makes obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to explain to the person making
the confession that he is not bound to make a confession and if he does so it may be used as
evidence against him and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless upon
questioning the person making it, he has reason believe that it was being made voluntary. The
whole object of putting such question to an accused who desires to obtain an assurance of the
fact that confession is not an outcome of any inducement, threat or promise with regard to the
charge leveled against the accused as contained in Section 24 of the Evidence Act as stated in the
case of Kuthu Goyala vs. State of Assam2. Section 164 itself provides as warning to the accused
by the learned Magistrate before making any confessional statement offering time to him by the
Magistrate for his reflection and that to ensure from the accused before making such statement
whether he was in coercion or durance by the police and whether there was any police person
within his sight. These are protective measures which lend assurance to the Magistrate that the
accused was making the confessional statement on his own volition.

In the present case, offence under Central Excise and Salt Act was allegedly committed by
accused company to avoid payment of excise duly. Two employees of the accused company had
1
D.N. Sen; The Code of Criminal Procedure; Vol. 1 Edi. 2006; Pg. 575.

2
1981 CrLJ 424.

8
admitted their guilt in their alleged statements. The officer had not warned those persons under
Section 164(2) that their statement is admissible against them or against the co-accused.
Acquittal of the accused in such circumstances would be proper.

CONDITIONS ESSENTIAL FOR RECORDING CONFESSION

The sine qua non for recording a confession is that Magistrate must explain to the confessing
accused that he was not bound to make the confession and that if he did so, such confession
might be used as evidence against him. That apart a magistrate is forbidden from recording such
confession until he gets satisfied that the person is keen to make a voluntary confession.
The word confession cannot be construed as meaning a statement by an accused suggesting the
inference that he committed crime. A confession must either admit in terms of the offence or at
any rate substantially all facts which constitute the offence.
The Supreme Court in the case of Sarvansing Ratansingh v. State of Punjab1, dealing with
the provisions of Section 164(3) of the Cr. P.c., had occasion to observe that the Magistrate
before whom an accused is produced for purposes of recording a confession must allow a longer
period of time to elapse before recording that confession. The obvious reason for this was
because regardless of what form of custody the accused is brought out, he is still accessible to the
investigating authorities and, therefore, order to off-set the possibility of the confession being the
aftermath of coercion or inducement, the Court was of view that if sufficient time is allowed to
elapse that the quality of the confession would stand considerably improve.
Before recording confession of an accused under Section 164, Cr. P.C., it is the duty of the
Magistrate to satisfy himself that the accused was giving statement voluntarily and for this he has
to put certain questions to the accused had from the answers given to the questions, the
Magistrate would come to the conclusion as to whether the confession which the accused-is
going to make would be voluntary or under some duress or inducement. The questioning of the
accused before recording confession as to whether it was voluntary is a matter of substance and
not of mere form. A Magistrate should ascertain at the beginning of the statement and not at the
end whether the confession made is voluntarily. In the instant case, from the statement of the
learned Magistrate, it is clear that he had not put any question to the accused before making
confession, but he had given only warning as has been given in the certificate. It is, therefore,

1
AIR 1957 SC 637.

9
clear that before recording the confession, the learned Magistrate had not at all made any enquiry
by putting question to the accused for satisfying himself that he confession made by the accused
was voluntarily and not under duress, and inducement.
Before a confessional statement made under Section 164, Cr. P.c., can be acted upon, it must
be shown to be voluntary and free from Police influence. The provisions of Section 164 not
followed, hence confessional statement made by the accused- appellant in the instant case, could
not be taken into account as it suffered from serious infirmities1.

(1) ‘Confession’: The Judges ‘Rules’.

It is a fundamental basic pril1ciple of criminal jurisprudence that caution must be administered

to a person from whom a confessional statement is recorded that the same would be used against
him in a judicial proceeding. The same is also recognized in England and what is known as
"Judge's Rule". The Judge's Rule were not rules of Jaw, but were intended only as a guidance for
ensuring as far as possible that statements to the police should not be obtained from a suspected
person in any way which could be regarded as unfair. The rules expressly accepted that when the
officer is endeavoring to discover the author of a crime he may properly seek information about
it by reasonable questioning of any person, whether suspected or not, but laid it down that as
soon as the officer had made up his mind to charge a person he should, before asking any further
questions caution him by saying: Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are
not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down
in writing and may be given in evidence.

Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that
way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden 2. Before recording the
confession the accused shall be questioned as to the voluntary nature of his confession3.

(2) If the Magistrate has reasons to believe that confession is being made voluntarily the
confession will be recorded.
1
D.N. Sen; The Code of Criminal Procedure; Vol. 1 Edi. 2006; Pg. 581

2
Hemant Kumar vs. State; 1991 CrLJ 3239,3243.

3
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal; The Code of Criminal Procedure; Edi. 18th (2007); Pg.552.

10
The compliance of the sub-section (2) of Section 164 is mandatory and imperative and non-
compliance of it renders the confession inadmissible in evidence. Section 463 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure provides that where the a questions and answers regarding the confession
had not been recorded evidence could be adduced to prove that in fact the requirement of sub-
section (2) of Section 164 read with Section 281 had been complied with. As stated in the case
of Kehar singh vs. State1; if the Courts came to a finding that such a compliance had in fact been
made the mere omission to record the same in the proper form would not render it inadmissible
in evidence and the defect is cured under Section 463 but when there is non-compliance of the
mandatory requirement of Section 164(2), Criminal Procedure Code and it comes out in
evidence that no such explanation as envisaged in that sub-section had been given to the accused
by the Magistrate, this substantial defect could not be cured under Section463,Criminal
Procedure Code.

(3) It is the duty of the Magistrate to satisfy himself that accused was completely free from any
possible police influence.

The conduct leaves a lurking doubt in mind as to the voluntary character of the desire to confess.
But more important the question for consideration is if steps were taken for removal of police
influence on the appellant and if they were accorded time for cool reflection to decide for them if
they would confess their guilt, think over the consequence of making the statement. It has,
therefore, been laid down judicially that the accused should be separated from the police and
should be kept in the magisterial custody and not in police custody and the police shall have no
opportunity during the period of magisterial custody of influencing the accused. It was held in
the case of Govinda Pradhan vs. State2 that is the duty of the Magistrate to satisfy him that the
accused was completely freed from any possible police influence.

(4) Recording a statement under section 164 is not a condition for grating pardon.

1
AIR 1988 SC 1883.

2
1991 CrLJ 269.

11
With regard to the Court of Session, the power to grant pardon and the procedure for the same is
prescribed under Section 307, Cr. P.C. The condition is not mentioned in Section 307, Cr. P.C.,
but mentioned only in Section 306(1) of Cr. P.C. The only condition which is contained in the
said section is that 'the person to whom pardon is granted should make a full and true disclosure
of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person
concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof. Recording a statement
under Section 164 is not a "condition' for granting pardon

CONFESSION BEFORE MAGISTRATE

The provisions of Section 164(2) which require that the Magistrate before recording confession
shall explain to the person making confession that he is not bound to make a confession 'and if
he does so, it may be used as evidence against him and upon questioning, the person if the
Magistrate has reasons to believe that it is being made voluntarily then the confession will be
recorded by the Magistrate. The compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 164 is, therefore,
mandatory and imperative and non-compliance of it renders the confession inadmissible in
evidence, illegality not curable under Section 463, Cr. P.C.

There is no requirement that separate reasons must be recorded for believing that confession was
made voluntarily. An application for recording confession need not be signed by the accused.
The Magistrate should not record statements under Section 164, Cr. P.C., at his residence. A
statement of a witness recorded by a Magistrate in derogation of Section 164, Cr. P.C., is
inadmissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. A confession recorded without complying
with the provisions of Section 164, held inadmissible in evidence.

In recording confession, the Magistrate should be fully satisfied that the confessional statement
which the accused wants to make is in fact and in substance voluntary. As stated in the case of
Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh vs. State of Punjab 1; the whole object of putting question to an
accused person who offers to confess is to obtain an assurance of the fact that the confession is
not caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the
accused person as mentioned in Section 24, Evidence Act.

WHEN REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 164 ARE NOT COMPLIED WITH

1
AIR 1957 SC 637.

12
According to S. 91 of the Evidence Act, if any matter is required by law to be reduced to the
form of a document (viz., recording of a confession or a statement under S. 164 of CrPC no
evidence shall be given in proof of such matter except the document itself. Therefore when a
magistrate has recorded a confession under S. 164 but has failed to record as required by that
section that the provisions of the section were complied with, no evidence can be given to show
that such confession was in fact duly made to the magistrate. Section 463 however lifts this
embargo on the admission of such evidence provided (a) such non-compliance with S. 164 has
not injured the accused in his defense on the merits and (b) he had in fact duly made the
statement recorded. The words "duly made the statement recorded" are of vital importance. It has
now been well-settled that where magistrate recording a confession under S. 164 neglects to
follow the procedure prescribed by that section, oral evidence of the confession is totally
inadmissible. The object in giving power to a magistrate to record confessions under S. 164 is
that the confession may be proved by the record of it made in the prescribed manner. If proof of
the confession by other means is made permissible, the whole purpose of S. 164 including
safeguards contained in it for the protection of accused persons, would be rendered nugatory.
The Supreme Court has therefore held that S. 164, by necessary implication, prohibits the
magistrate from giving oral evidence of the confession made to him. Section 463 only permits
oral evidence to prove that the procedure laid down in S. 164 had actually been followed, where
the record, which ought to show that, does not do so. The safeguards provided in S. 164 for the
benefit of the accused persons were purposely created by the legislature and it could not have
been intended that they might, at the will of the prosecution, be bypassed. That is what would
happen if it were held that the operation and effect of S. 463 is that oral evidence of the
magistrate is admissible to prove the confession even though S. 164 is not complied with.

Section 164 does not override S. 29 of the Evidence Act. In view of the specific provision of S.
29, mere absence of warnings under S. 164 would not make the confession inadmissible,
provided the court is satisfied that the accused knew that he was not bound to make the
confession and that if he did so it would be used as evidence against him. However, if the
magistrate recording a confession of an accused person produced before him in the course of
police investigation, does not, on the face of the record, certify in clear, categorical terms his
satisfaction or belief as to voluntary nature of the confession recorded by him, nor testifies
orally, as to such satisfaction or belief, the defect would be fatal to the admissibility and use of

13
the confession against the accused at the trial as stated in the case of Chandran vs. State of T.N1.

The word "may" in sub-sec. (1) of S. 164 does not denote that the magistrate has full discretion
to record or not to record a confession according to the procedure laid down in S. 164. The
principle is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be
done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. The
discretion suggested by the word' 'may" is only for the purpose of giving true effect to the
provisions of S. 164. For instance, it can hardly be doubted that a magistrate would not be
obliged to record any confession made to him if, for example, it were that of a self-accusing mad
man, or for any other reason the magistrate thought it to be incredible or useless for the purposes
of justice.

Section 164 is applicable to confessions and statements recorded by magistrates during the
course of an investigation or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or
trial. If the confession is recorded by a magistrate when no investigation had begun, the
mandatory procedure laid down in S. 164 is not applicable in such a situation. In case of Yendre
Narsimha Murthy Re2; where the accused after committing murder went to a magistrate and
made a confessional statement and the magistrate recorded the statement and the accused signed
it, it was held that though the procedure laid down in S. 164 was not followed, yet as no
investigation of crime registered against the accused was in progress, the confession was
admissible in evidence. There is nothing in the language of S. 164 to enable us to go to the extent
of converting a mode of performance of duty of certain magistrates during a certain period into a
disability of all those who may hold magisterial office to give evidence of confessional
statements even other than those covered by S. 164. However, where the accused is induced to
make a statement or confession to a person other than a magistrate or the police merely as a
colorable pretence for the purpose of avoiding the letter of the law, such a statement or
confession must be held to have been made' 'in the course of an investigation" within the
meaning of Ss. 162 and 164, and it must be rejected, as in its spirit it is in violation of the
provisions of those sections3.

1
(1978) 4SCC 90.

2
AIR 1966 AP 131.

3
R.V. Kelkar; Criminal Procedure; Edi.4th (2004); Pg. 158-60.

14
 Where the neither confessional statement show that confession was not made voluntarily nor
sufficient time was given to the person making the confession to have a cool reflection, the
confessional statement is liable to be rejected. Where the Magistrate fails to record his
satisfaction that accused was making confession voluntarily, confession of accused so recorded,
has to be kept out of consideration.

CONCLUSION

The section deals with the recording of confessions, and other statements which are not
confessions. While a confession so recorded can be used as substantive evidence, a non-
confessional statement is not substantive evidence.

Sec. 164 is the protective measure, as it itself contains warning of the accused by the Magistrate
before making the confessional statement. The effect of the section 164, when read with section
24,25,26 and 29 of the Evidence Act, is that: A confession made by an accused to a police officer
is inadmissible in evidence; If a person in police custody desires to make a confession, he must
do that in the presence of the Magistrate; A magistrate shall not record it unless he is, upon
inquiry from the person making it satisfied that it is voluntary; When the magistrate records it, he
shall record it in the manner provided in the Section; and Only when so recorded the confession
becomes relevant and admissible in evidence. The section provides for the manner in which
confession is to be recorded it is there so as to prevent miscarriage of justice and to look that
confession was made under any kind of threat or inducement.

The mode of recording a confession is not the same as in case of recording a statement. The
mode of recording confession is much more elaborate so as to ensure that free and voluntary
confessions alone are recorded under the section. The provisions of S. 164 are a safety valve
meant to muzzle involuntary confession. The object of S. 164 read with the "Judges Rules" i.e.
the Executive instructions of the High Court, is to find whether the statement sought to be made
by an accused is perfectly voluntary or not. Therefore the act of recording confession under S.
164 is a solemn act, and in discharging his duties under the section, the magistrate must take care
to see that the requirements of law under S. 164 must be fully satisfied.

15
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Ratanlal Ranchhoddas et al, Ratanlal Dhirajlal The Code of Criminal Procedure; Edi. 18th
(2007); Wadhwa & Co., Nagpur, New Delhi.

2. Sen D.N., The Code of Criminal Procedure; Edi.(2006) Vol. 1; Premier Publishing Co.,
Allahabad.

3. Gopal R.; Sohoni’s Code of Criminal Procedure; Edi.20 th (2002) Vol.2; LexisNexis
Butterworths, New Delhi.

4. Kelkar R.V., Criminal Procedure; Edi.4th (2004); Eastern Book Co., Lucknow.

16
5. Tandon M.P. et al, Criminal Procedure Code; Edi.16th (2005); Allahabad Law Agency,
Faridabad, Haryana.

17