Chapter XXIII
Section 291A CrPC: Identification report of Magistrate
New Law Update (2024)
Section 324 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Investigation / Inquiry
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Any document purporting to be a report of identification under the hand of an Executive Magistrate in respect of a person or property may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, although such Magistrate is not called as a witness; Provided that where such report contains a statement of any suspect or witness to which the provisions of section 21, section 32, section 33, section 155 or section 157, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), apply, such statement shall not be used under this sub-section except in accordance with the provisions of those sections.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or of the accused, summon and examine such Magistrate as to the subject matter of the said report.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 291A(1)
This sub-section allows an identification report prepared by an Executive Magistrate to be admitted as evidence in a court proceeding without the Magistrate needing to physically appear as a witness. However, any statements by suspects or witnesses within that report must still comply with specific provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for their admissibility.
Section 291A(2)
This sub-section gives the court the discretion to summon and examine the Executive Magistrate concerning their identification report, if deemed necessary. Crucially, the court is obligated to summon and examine the Magistrate if either the prosecution or the accused makes a formal application for their presence.
Landmark Judgements
Ramanand v. State of U.P. (1956):
The Supreme Court established that identification parades are not substantive evidence but are primarily corroborative in nature. It emphasized the crucial role of the Magistrate in conducting Test Identification Parades impartially to ensure their fairness and evidentiary value.
Munshi Singh v. State of U.P. (2006):
The Supreme Court reiterated the significance of a properly conducted Test Identification Parade (TIP) for corroborating the identification of an accused. It affirmed that evidence of identification made for the first time in court holds little value unless corroborated by a previous TIP, highlighting the procedural importance of such identification reports.