Chapter VII
Section 92 CrPC: Procedure as to letters and telegrams
New Law Update (2024)
Section 94 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Investigation / Inquiry
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) If any document, parcel or thing in the custody of a postal or telegraph authority is, in the opinion of the District Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court of Session or High Court wanted for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, such Magistrate or Court may require the postal or telegraph authority, as the case may be, to deliver the document, parcel or thing to such person as the Magistrate or Court directs.
(2) If any such document, parcel or thing is, in the opinion of any other Magistrate, whether Executive or Judicial, or of any Commissioner of Police or District Superintendent of Police, wanted for any such purpose, he may require the postal or telegraph authority, as the case may be, to cause search to be made for and to detain such document, parcel or thing pending the order of a District Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Court under sub-section (1).
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 92(1)
This sub-section empowers higher judicial authorities like the District Magistrate, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court of Session, or High Court to directly order postal or telegraph authorities to deliver documents, parcels, or things needed for investigations, inquiries, or trials.
Section 92(2)
This provision allows other Magistrates (Executive or Judicial), Commissioners of Police, or District Superintendents of Police to temporarily require postal or telegraph authorities to search for and detain such items. This detention is provisional, pending a final order from a higher court as specified in sub-section (1).
Landmark Judgements
V.P. Sethi v. Union of India (1977):
The Delhi High Court clarified that the power under Section 92 CrPC to demand production of documents from postal or telegraph authorities is not absolute. It must be exercised judiciously and for the specific purposes of investigation, inquiry, or trial, while also considering aspects like public interest and privilege associated with such communications.
P.L. Bhola Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P. (1987):
This case affirmed the wide-ranging power vested in specified Magistrates and Courts under Section 92 CrPC to requisition any document, parcel, or thing from postal or telegraph authorities for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding under the Code, emphasizing the importance of such evidence in criminal justice administration.