High
Court CRA No. 7 of 1995. Judgment: 27th March, 2023
Under
Section 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the law clearly
specifies who is competent to record confessions or statements during
the course of a criminal investigation. The provision ensures that the process
is safeguarded from coercion, bias, or procedural irregularities, and it
restricts the power to record such sensitive evidence to particular judicial
officers.
Judicial
or Metropolitan Magistrate – The Competent Authority
The
primary and qualified persons under Section 164(1) CrPC are:
- Judicial Magistrate
- Metropolitan Magistrate
Importantly,
these Magistrates can record statements or confessions regardless of whether
they have jurisdiction over the case itself. This means that as long as the
person is a Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate, they can record statements for
any matter under investigation, even if it falls outside their territorial or
subject-matter jurisdiction.
Exclusion
of Police Officers and Other Magistrates
A
police officer, even if vested with Magisterial powers under any
law, cannot record confessions under Section 164. This is to ensure
impartiality and eliminate any possibility of coercion or influence. The law
explicitly excludes police officers from being considered competent
authorities for this purpose.
Likewise,
Executive Magistrates or Judicial Magistrates not qualified under
Section 164(1)—for example, a Judicial Magistrate Second Class
(unless expressly empowered)—are not authorized to record such
confessions. Any statement or confession recorded by an unqualified officer is inadmissible
in court, and even the oral testimony of such officers cannot be used
to validate the confession.
Supreme
Court Interpretation
In
the landmark case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Others
(1964), the Supreme Court held that when the law designates specific
officers to perform a duty, such as recording a confession under Section
164, it must be performed only by those officers. Hence, if a Judicial
Magistrate First Class is authorized under the law, then others (like a
Second Class Magistrate) cannot assume or exercise that function without
express empowerment.
Special
Provision for Union Territories (Section 164(1A))
Recognizing
the logistical challenges in remote territories, Section 164(1A) was
added in 1974 to provide an exception for Union Territories like:
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands,
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli,
- Lakshadweep Islands.
In
these areas, Executive Magistrates may be allowed to record confessions,
but only if the following conditions are met:
1.
Absence of a Judicial Magistrate
qualified to record the confession.
2.
The State Government deems it necessary and
expedient to record the confession.
3.
The State Government consults with the
jurisdictional High Court and specifically confers the powers of
Section 164(1) CrPC upon an Executive Magistrate (not being a police officer).
This
provision ensures flexibility while maintaining judicial oversight in
exceptional geographical areas.
Orissa
High Court Rules Executive Magistrate Cannot Record Confession under Essential
Commodities Act: A Landmark Verdict in Ananda Ch Sahu v. State of Odisha CRA
No. 7 of 1995.
This
judgment by the Orissa High Court is a watershed moment in reinforcing
procedural integrity in criminal trials under special statutes. The Court
has decisively clarified that:
- Executive Magistrates do not possess the
statutory authority to record confessions under the
Essential Commodities Act.
- Section 164 CrPC applies
even to special legislations unless expressly excluded.
- Only Judicial Magistrates
can record confessions under CrPC.
- Any confession not recorded under due
procedure is inadmissible and cannot form the basis for conviction.
- Mere suspicion or circumstantial presence
does not equate to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion:
Only
a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate is a qualified person under
Section 164 CrPC to record confessions or statements during investigation. Any
confession recorded by a person outside this scope—such as a police officer,
Executive Magistrate (outside Union Territory exceptions), or an unempowered
magistrate—is inadmissible. These procedural safeguards protect the rights of
the accused and uphold the integrity of the criminal justice process.