Chapter XXIII
Section 275 CrPC: Record in warrant-cases
New Law Update (2024)
Section 297 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Magistrate's Court
Punishment
Procedural – Warrant / Summons Process
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) In all warrant-cases tried before a Magistrate, the evidence of each witness shall, as his examination proceeds, be taken down in writing either by the Magistrate himself or by his dictation in open Court or, where he is unable to do so owing to a physical or other incapacity, under his direction and superintendence, by an officer of the Court appointed by him in this behalf.
(2) Where the Magistrate causes the evidence to be taken down, he shall record a certificate that the evidence could not be taken down by himself for the reasons referred to in Sub-Section (1).
(3) Such evidence shall ordinarily be taken down in the form of a narrative, but the Magistrate may, in his discretion, take down, or cause to be taken down, any part of such evidence in the form of question and answer.
(4) The evidence so taken down shall be signed by the Magistrate and shall form part of the record.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 275(1)
This sub-section lays down the fundamental rule for recording witness testimony in warrant-cases, stipulating that the Magistrate or a designated officer under their direct supervision must record the evidence as the examination progresses, ensuring a proper legal record.
Section 275(2)
It mandates that if the Magistrate does not personally record the evidence due to incapacity, a formal certificate must be placed on record, explaining the specific reasons for this delegation, thereby ensuring transparency and accountability in the trial process.
Landmark Judgements
Mohd. Nayeemuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011):
This judgment emphasizes the mandatory nature of the certificate required under Section 275(2) CrPC when the Magistrate delegates the recording of evidence. It highlights that failure to provide this certificate, specifying the reasons for delegation, amounts to a procedural irregularity that can vitiate the proceedings.
State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Dhule (1999):
The Bombay High Court discussed the interpretation of “physical or other incapacity” under Section 275(1) CrPC, stressing that the Magistrate retains overall direction and superintendence even when an officer records the evidence. The judgment underscores the Magistrate’s ultimate responsibility for ensuring the accurate and lawful recording of testimony.