SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED UNIVERSITY)

(Established under Section 3 of the UGC Act 1956)

Re-accredited by NAAC with ‘A’ grade (3.58/4) Awarded Category – I by UGC

Program: BBA LLB (H)

Batch: 2020 – 2025
Semester: IV
Course Name: Law of Crimes Paper II: Criminal Procedure Code I
PRN: 20010126297
Name of the Student: Leon Mathew

INSTRUCTIONS
1. Mention your details only in the space provided above. If any other details
name, contact detail etc. are written anywhere else in the answer script it will
be treated as adoption of unfair means.
2. Use diagrams and sketches wherever required.
3. Submission must be done by the student through google form link provided
by the examination department and all submissions must be in the word
format only(.doc/.docx). Submission of any other format will not accepted.
4. Submission will not be accepted beyond the deadline given by the
examination department in each subject. Student will be marked absent in
case of late submission.
5. Formatting guidelines: Font size & name: 12 & Times New Roman; Line
spacing 1.5; Justified; Page size: A4; No borders
6. Write your answer in your own language and do not copy paste from any
source. Read the question carefully and write your answer fulfilling the
requirements of the question.
7. If the students copy from each other’s assignment, it will be considered as
unfair means case and performance will be treated as null and void for the
entire examination.
Q.1 “The police have statutory authority to arrest, but it does not mean that they necessarily
should arrest” critically analyse the statement in the light of relevant provisions and
decisions.

Answer –

The most valued and important human right is the right to life and personal liberty. Through
its many rulings, the Supreme Court of India has broadened the scope of this right, bringing a
slew of rights under the aegis of Article 21. The right to life encompasses the right to a
dignified life, not just an animal existence. However, it is common for police to make
unwarranted arrests and unjustly punish innocent persons. Such police abuse of authority
creates irreversible harm to a person's life, liberty, reputation, and self-esteem. It is trite to say
that just because the police may arrest does not imply that they must.

The Definition of Arrest

Arrest, in its most basic form, is the deprivation of a person's freedom of movement by the
exercise of legal power. 'Arrest,' according to Black's Law Dictionary, is 'to deprive a person
of his liberty by a legal authority or to take possession of someone by actual or supposed
authority for the purpose of keeping or detaining him to answer a criminal accusation or civil
claim.'

Arrest-related provisions

In India, the legislation governing arrests is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973. The method to be followed by the police for making a 'Arrest of individuals' is outlined
in Chapter V (sections 41 to 60A). Section 41B of the Code, for example, specifies the arrest
method and the obligations of police officers when making the arrest, and Section 60A of the
Code specifies that the arrest must be carried out precisely in line with the rules of the Code.
The Code contains the following significant regulations about arrests:

Section 41: Situations in which police may arrest without a warrant

Section 41(1) enumerates the conditions in which a police officer may arrest a person without
a warrant or an order from a Magistrate, as follows:
 1. If there is commission of a cognizable offence in the presence of a police officer.
2. Receipt by a police officer of a reasonable complaint or credible information against
any individual, or the presence of a reasonable suspicion that any person has
committed a cognizable crime punishable by imprisonment for less than or up to 7
years.

In this situation, the following requirements must be met as well:

1. The police officer has grounds to think that such individual has committed a
cognizable crime based on such complaint, information, or suspicion.
2. A police officer is satisfied that the arrest is necessary to prevent such person from
committing any further offence or for proper investigation of the offence, or to
prevent such person from causing the disappearance or tampering with any evidence,
or to prevent him from making any inducement, threat, or promise to any person who
is familiar with the facts of the case to discourage him from disclosing such facts to
the court, the police officer, or his 

In addition, the officer must document his reasons for making such an arrest in writing.

1. A police officer has received credible information against any person regarding the
commission of a cognizable offence by him, and such offence is punishable by
imprisonment for more than 7 years or by the death penalty, and the police officer has
reason to believe that such person committed the offence based on the information;
2. Proclamation as an offender;
3. Possession of anything that is fairly thought to be stolen property, and the person
(who is discovered in possession of the object) is reasonably suspected of committing
an offence involving such thing; or
4. Obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duties, or fleeing or trying to
flee from legal custody; or
5. One who is fairly suspected of deserting from the Union Armed Forces; or
6. A police officer has received a reasonable complaint or credible information against
any person, or there is a reasonable suspicion that such person is involved in any act
committed outside of India that, if committed in India, would have been punishable as
an offence, and for which he is liable to arrest or detention in India; or
 7. When a discharged criminal violates any regulation established under Section 356(5);
or
8. The officer has received a request (whether oral or written) from another officer for
the arrest of any individual. The request must specify the individual who is to be
arrested as well as the offence for which the arrest is to be made. The request must
show that the officer issuing it has the authority to arrest such a person without a
warrant.

In the event of a non-cognizable crime, Section 41(2) states that no arrest may be conducted
without a warrant or an order from a magistrate.

Notice of appearance before a police officer: Section 41A

In all circumstances when arrest is not necessary under Section 41A, a notice of appearance is
issued to the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, credible
information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his conduct of a cognizable
crime (1). When such a person (to whom the notice of appearance is given) complies with
such notice and continues to do so, he cannot be arrested for the crime referred to in the
notice unless the police officer, for reasons to be documented, believes that he should be
arrested.

Other pertinent clauses

Section 50 states that anybody detained without a warrant must be notified of the reason for
their detention as well as their right to bail.

According to Section 57, a person apprehended without a warrant may not be held in jail for
longer than 24 hours. The time required to travel from the scene of arrest to the Magistrate's
court is not included in this calculation.

Section 58 requires officers in charge of police stations to report the cases of all people
detained without a warrant to the District Magistrate or Sub-divisional Magistrate, regardless
of whether such persons have been granted to bond.

The perspective of the Supreme Court

Through its many declarations, the Supreme Court has established enough protections to limit
and restrict the police's broad discretionary ability to make arrests. Several rules have been
established to avoid police misuse of authority. Some noteworthy decisions in this respect are
as follows:

Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994)

The Supreme Court addressed the power of arrest and its execution extensively in this case.
This case is also known as the 'arrest guidelines case.' In view of the growing crime rate and
accusations of human rights breaches due to indiscriminate arrests throughout the years, the
Supreme Court attempted to strike a balance between the rights of an individual and the
rights of collective persons as a community.

Case facts

The SSP, Ghaziabad, called a 28-year-old lawyer, Joginder Kumar (petitioner), for an
investigation. The petitioner was joined by his brothers when he came before the SSP. The
brothers of the Petitioner were advised that he will be freed that evening. The petitioner,
however, was not freed on that day. The next day, it was announced that the petitioner will be
imprisoned again for additional investigations in connection with another case. The petitioner
was never brought before a Magistrate. The brothers learned on the third day that the
petitioner had been brought to an unidentified place. A habeas corpus petition was filed under
Article 32 seeking the petitioner's release. The Supreme Court issued notifications to the
Government of Uttar Pradesh and the SSP, Ghaziabad, ordering them to present the petitioner
and explain why he was remanded in jail for 5 days without a valid reason.

Judgment

In a historic decision, the Supreme Court declared that no arrest may be made routinely based
on a mere accusation of commission of a crime made against a person. A police officer
cannot arrest a person just because it is legal for him to do so, since arrest and imprisonment
in a police lock-up may do irreparable injury to a person's reputation and self-esteem.
protectThe Court stated that no arrest should be made until the police officer is reasonably
convinced after some investigation that the complaint is true and bona fide, both in the
interest of protection of constitutional rights  and of the police officer himself. The officer
making the arrest must have a legitimate explanation for believing that the arrest is necessary
and justified. Except in the most egregious cases, arrests must be avoided if a police officer
has given a notice to the individual to appear at the Station House and that he is not to leave
the station without authorization.

The Supreme Court established detailed guidelines to defend and safeguard the basic rights
guaranteed in Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution, as well as to ensure their effective
implementation. Some of these recommendations are as follows:

1. An arrested individual in custody has the right to have one friend, family, or other
person notified about his or her arrest and location of imprisonment. When the
detained individual is taken into the police station, he is notified of this entitlement.
2. The person who was notified of the arrest must be recorded in the Diary.
3. The grounds for the arrest must be documented in the case diary.
4. It is the responsibility of the Magistrate before whom the arrested individual is
brought to ensure that the foregoing standards have been met.

Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2021)

In this case, when deciding whether the appellant's anticipatory bail motion should have been
granted, the Supreme Court analysed Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. and said that "merely
because an arrest might be made because it is legitimate does not necessitate that arrest be
made."

Case Facts

The Appellant (who claimed to be a stone supplier) and 83 others were requested to be named
in a FIR filed seven years ago. The Appellant had joined the inquiry, and a charge sheet was
said to be ready for filing. Following the issuance of an arrest warrant, the Appellant applied
to the High Court for anticipatory bail. After the High Court denied his bail application, the
Appellant petitioned the Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel for the respondent,
the trial court believes that until the individual is brought into custody, the charge sheet
would not be entered on record under Section 170 of the Cr.P.C.
Issue

Is it necessary to detain an accused before the charge sheet may be taken on record under
Section 170 of the Cr.P.C?

Judgment

While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not
require the Officer-in-Charge to arrest each and every accused at the moment the charge sheet
is filed. Where the accused has cooperated with the inquiry and the investigating officer does
not think the accused will flee or violate the summons, the officer is not required to arrest or
present the accused in custody. The Court further said that the term "custody" under Section
170 of the Cr.P.C. does not refer to either police or judicial custody, but rather to the
appearance of the accused before the court by the investigating officer at the time of filing the
charge sheet. The Hon'ble Court reaffirmed that frequent arrests might do irreparable injury
to a person's reputation and self-esteem.

While noting that personal liberty is an essential component of our constitutional mission, the
Court determined that the need to arrest an accused during an investigation occurs in the
following circumstances:

1. When a custodial investigation is required,

2. It is a horrific crime,
3. There is a potential that the accused may influence the witnesses, or the accused may
flee.

Other pertinent case laws

Arnesh Kumar v. Bihar State (2014)

The Supreme Court of India established significant checks and balances on the ability of
police to arrest an accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in this case.
According to the Court:

An arrest should not be made just because the offence is non-bailable and cognizable and it is
legal for the officer to do so.

The presence of arrest authority and the reason for its use are two very distinct things. The
police personnel must be able to explain their use of such authority.

A person cannot be arrested routinely just on a mere accusation of committing of an offence.

While interpreting Section 41 of the Cr.P.C., the Court held that before a police officer makes
an arrest, he must have reason to believe, based on information and material, that the accused
committed the offence, and the police officer must be satisfied that the arrest is necessary for
one or more of the purposes specified in sub-clauses (a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 of
the Cr.PC.

The Court also addressed Section 167 of the Cr.P.C., holding that before ordering detention
under the aforementioned Section, a Magistrate must be satisfied that the arrest was
legitimate and in conformity with the law, as well as all of the person's constitutional rights.
If the arrest does not meet the standards of Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the
Magistrate cannot order continued custody and must release the accused.

The Court also issued the following directives to ensure that police personnel do not conduct
needless arrests and that Magistrates do not issue casual detention orders:

State governments should advise police personnel not to arrest people just because they have
a case under Section 498-A of the IPC. They must first convince themselves that arrest is
necessary in line with the standards established.

All police officers must be given a checklist comprising certain sub-clauses under Section
41(1)(b)(ii). The police officer must submit the checklist and provide the grounds and
documents that led to the arrest when presenting the accused before the Magistrate for
continued custody.

Magistrate must carefully read the police officer's report and then record his own satisfaction
as to whether extended detention is warranted.

The notice of appearance under Section 41A of the Cr.PC must be served on the accused
within two weeks of the date of the case's establishment, unless extended by the
Superintendent of Police of the District for reasons to be documented in writing.

If the involved police personnel refuse to comply with the directives, they would face
departmental discipline as well as contempt of court.

The Magistrate who orders detention without documenting reasons is subject to departmental
action by the competent High Court.

The Court went on to say that the aforementioned instructions would also apply in
circumstances where the crime is punished by imprisonment for less than seven years or for
up to seven years.
M.C. Abraham v. Maharashtra State (2002)

In this judgement, the Supreme Court of India ruled that since the authority to arrest is
discretionary, a police officer is not necessarily required to arrest an accused even if he is
suspected of committing a cognizable act. The court also stated that since arrest infringes on a
person's personal liberty and damages his standing and reputation, the authority to arrest must
be utilised with prudence and circumspection.

Q.2 In a case the police reported to the Magistrate that Mr. D who is accused of committing
rape and huge fraud is about to sell the property and go to U.K. Explain the processes
available to the Magistrate to ensure the attendance of the accused for the criminal trial.

Answer –

Steps taken to secure the accused's presence

Because the presence of the accused and the hearing of both sides is essential to a fair trial, an
entire chapter of the Code deals with the procedure of guaranteeing the attendance of all
defendants by delivering a summons, warrant or proclamation, and attachment of property.
After taking cognizance of an offence, the Magistrate must determine whether to issue a
summons or a warrant for the accused's appearance.

Summons of Arrest

In criminal cases, a summons is an order issued by the court requiring a person to appear in
court.

Type of summons

Section 61 of the Code specifies the summons form. Every summons must include:

1. It must be in writing, with a duplicate copy, and signed by the presiding officer of the
court or any other official designated by the High Court.
 2. Have the court's seal.

The structure of the summons is provided by Form 1 of Schedule 2 of the Code, which
comprises the name of the accused, address of the accused, date of issuing the summons,
signature of the Magistrate, and seal of the Court.

How summons are served

The method for serving the summons is outlined in Section 62 of the Code. According to
Section (1), every summons must be served by a police officer, a court official, or other
public workers, pursuant to the laws of the State Government in question.

The copy of summons shall, if feasible, be served directly to the person called, according to
Section (2).

Clause (3) of the Section specifies that anybody served with a summons must sign on the
back of the duplicate copy if the serving officer requires it.

Services of summons on corporate bodies and societies

Section 63 of the Code states that summons on corporate organisations and societies may be
served on the secretary, local manager, or any other important official of the company. The
summons may be served in India through letter or post sent to the corporation's top executive.
In such circumstances, the summons is served when the letters arrive in the regular course of
the mail.

In this section, the term "corporation" does not refer to a society registered under the
Societies Registration Act of 1860, but rather to an incorporated firm or other corporate
organisations.

When the person who is supposed to serve cannot be located, the summons is served.

According to Section 64 of the Code, if the individual cannot be discovered despite

reasonable diligence, a copy of the summons may be served on an adult male member of his
family who lives with him. The Section further states that the serving officer may have the
duplicate copies signed if he deems it essential.
Service on Government Employee

Section 66 states that if the person summoned is a government employee, the court must issue
a duplicate summons to the head of the office where the individual is working. Following
that, the head officer must serve it on the person called in accordance with Section 62 of the
Code and shall return it to the Court under his signature. The accused's signature acts as
proof.

Proof of service in such cases when serving officer is not present

The court demands verification of summons serving. Section 68 states that in circumstances
where the summons was issued beyond the Court's local jurisdiction and the person who
served the summons is not present at the hearing, an affidavit indicating that the summons
was issued must be filed before the Court. The affidavit and a duplicate of the summons are
acceptable evidence, and the affidavit's assertions are presumed to be truthful until proven
otherwise.

Arrest warrant

If the summons is not followed or the offences are exceptionally severe, the court may issue a
warrant. A warrant is a court order that directs a third party, generally a police officer, to
bring a person before the court. A warrant might be both bailable and non-bailable.

Form and substance of an arrest warrant

Section 70 of the Code specifies the kind and length of an arrest warrant. Every arrest warrant
must include the following provisions:

1. Be in writing; be signed by the presiding officer; and

2. Bear the court's seal.

The warrant is valid until it is revoked by the Court that issued it. Form 2 of Schedule 2 of the
Code specifies the format for issuing a warrant; it must include the name and designation of
the person or persons who will execute the warrant, the name and address of the accused, the
date the warrant was issued, the signature of the Magistrate, and the seal of the Court.

Modes of carrying out an arrest warrant

A warrant of arrest is normally implemented by a police officer under Section 72 of the Code.
If quick action is necessary and no police officers are available, the Court may instruct that
the warrant be executed by anybody else.

This Section further states that if a warrant is addressed to more than one officer or person, it
may be executed by any or all of them.

The procedure of arresting someone with a warrant

Section 80 of the Code addresses the procedure for arresting someone with a warrant. When a
warrant is issued outside of the court's local jurisdiction, the person must be brought before
the Magistrate, District Superintendent, or Commissioner of original jurisdiction. If the site of
arrest is within 30 kilometres of the court that issued the warrant, the person detained will be
brought to the court that issued the warrant. The Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi, for
example, issues an arrest warrant for a person in Sonipat. However, if the accused lives on
the Delhi-Sonipat border and his domicile is within 30 kilometres of the Metropolitan
Magistrate, the accused would be brought before the Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi rather
than the Magistrate of Sonipat.

The procedure by Magistrate after the arrest

The arrested individual has the right to appear before a Magistrate within 24 hours after being
apprehended. Section 81 of the Code states that if the offence is bailable and the person
arrested is willing to give bail as required by the Magistrate, District Superintendent, or
Commissioner, or if a direction to endorse security on the warrant has been issued and the
person arrested is willing to give such security, the District Superintendent or Commissioner
shall take such security or bail and forward a bond to the Court.
If the offence is not bailable, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Sessions Judge may issue
bail to the accused individual based on the facts and papers presented to the Court.

Proclamation and attachment of the property

When a person escapes warrants or absconds, a proclamation is issued providing the

individual one last opportunity to come before the Court. A proclamation notice is given to a
person's house or last known address, giving him 30 days to appear before the Court; if he
fails to do so, he is deemed a proclaimed criminal. Any police officer in the nation may arrest
such a person, and his property may be attached and auctioned.

Proclamation for an absconding individual

Section 82, Clause (1), specifies that if a person absconds or purposefully hides so that a
warrant cannot be executed, the Court may issue a written proclamation against such person
directing them to appear at a particular time and place within 30 days of the issuing of such
proclamation.

The method for issuing the proclamation is outlined in Section (2):

1. It must be publicly read in a conspicuous location in the town or village where the
person generally dwells; it must be attached to some portion of the home where the
person typically resides; and it must be connected to some part of the house where the
person ordinarily resides.
2. A copy of the proclamation is fastened to the courthouse; if the Court believes it is
essential, the proclamation may also be published in a daily newspaper.
3. The Court's written declaration is regarded acceptable proof that the proclamation was
made. The declaration states that the requirements of this Section have been met, as
well as the date the proclamation was issued.

Attachment of absconding person's property

Section 83 provides that if the Court thinks that the person against whom the proclamation is
made intends to dispose of his property or transfer the property beyond the Court's local
jurisdiction, the Court may order attachment of such property concurrently with the issuance
of the proclamation.

If the item ordered to be attached is mobile, the attachment under this provision must be done
as follows:

1. via seizure;
2. appointing a receiver;
3. a written order barring the conveyance of such property to the proclaimed person;
4. Or any combination of the above actions.

If the property in issue is immovable and the land pays income to the State Government, the
property is attached via the collector of the district; otherwise, the attachment is effected as
follows:

1. By acquiring possession; Designating a receiver;

2. By forbidding the declared person from receiving rent;
3. By any or all of the above orders.

If the connected property is perishable or involves live cattle, the Court may order an urgent
sale.

Attachment: claims and objections

Section 84 of the Code requires the Court to enquire regarding any claim or objection filed by
any person other than the person announced within 6 months after the property's attachment,
alleging that he has an interest in the property attached.

The action for such objection or claim may be filed in the Court that issued the attachment or,
if different, in the Court that made the attachment. Anyone whose claim or objection is
denied may file an appeal within one year of the date of the order.

Release, sale, and restoration of attached property

The property attached is to be freed if the proclaimed person comes before the Court within
30 days, according to Section 85 of the Code.
If the proclaimed individual fails to appear, the associated property passes to the State
Government. However, the Government cannot sell the property before 6 months have passed
from the date of attachment unless the property is perishable and selling the property is in the
best interests of the owner.

If the person who was proclaimed appears in court willingly within two years and establishes
that he did not abscond, but rather did not receive any notice of proclamation, the attached
property is to be freed, and if it has already been sold, the sale profits are to be handed to him.

Q.3 Short Notes

Answer –

A charge sheet is a report prepared by police officers after investigating a case, according to
Section 173 of the CrPC. It is presented to the court in order to begin the criminal trial.

Benefits of Charge Sheet:

1. It is a critical report that starts the criminal proceedings against the accused.

2. The accused's and others' statements are given.
3. Charges brought against the accused are mentioned.
4. To some degree, it aids the accused in gaining bail.
5. No criminal trial can commence without a charge sheet.

Contents of Charge Sheet:

The charge sheet must include the following information, according to section 173(2) of the
CrPC:

1. Names of Parties
2. Nature of Information
3. Names of those who are familiar with the case.
4. Whether or not an offence was committed? If so, who did it?
5. Whether or not the accused has been arrested?
6. Is the accused out on bail, and if so, what the surety and bond details are.
7. Is the accused being held in custody under Section 170 of the CrPC?
 8. If the crime is connected to rape under sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D, or
376E of the IPC, has the medical examination report been included to the charge
sheet?
9. If the officer takes any action in response to the person who filed the FIR, he must
communicate in the way authorised by the State Government.

Note: If the magistrate is dissatisfied with the investigation after obtaining the charge sheet,
he may request additional investigation under CrPC section 173(8).

Charge Sheet Filing Deadline

The required time limit for submitting charge sheet is as follows, according to CrPC:

1. Offence triable by Magistrate: 60 days

2. Offences triable by Sessions Court: 90 days

If the charge sheet is not submitted within the time frame specified above, the accused may
be granted default bail.

Charge Sheet Cancellation

Several bogus cases are being brought these days, some to bother the accused and others to
get revenge. In such cases, there exist provisions for the accused to be acquitted. To do so,
the accused must go to the High Court of the relevant State and submit a petition under
section 483 of the CrPC, which allows the High Court to quash the FIR/charge-sheet by
exercising inherent jurisdiction on the following grounds:

1. When the court determines that the FIR was filed just to harass the accused.
2. When the accusations in the FIR are not proven.
3. When a FIR is filed for a non-cognizable crime and the responsible police officer files
it without asking the magistrate's authorization under Section 155 of the CrPC.
4. When the accused's charges are incorrectly represented on the charge sheet.
Need of Quashing Charge Sheet

Devendra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 SCC 495 – A civil wrong must be separated
from a criminal wrong. When merely a civil wrong has been shown, the courts must not
allow a person to be harassed since there is no basis for taking cognizance.

b) Police Diary:

Introduction

Case diaries are addressed under Section 172 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure. A case
diary is a diary kept by police officers when investigating a case that provides information
about how the investigation was carried out as well as other facts such as the date the
investigation started, locations visited as part of the investigation, and so on. They are not
admissible as evidence, but they may be utilised to assist the Court throughout the
investigation/trial. These diaries are primarily created to assist the investigating officer in
refreshing his or her memory when testifying as a witness in a trial.

Police Diary

Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. discusses case diaries, how to keep them, their evidential
importance, and so on. There are three clauses in this section:

(1) Under Chapter XII, which deals with information to the police and their investigative
authorities, every police officer is required to keep a case notebook while conducting an
investigation. It should be updated on a daily basis while the investigation is ongoing.
Particulars of the case, such as the time the case was reported, the time the investigation
started, the time he ended the inquiry, locations visited for the purpose of the investigation,
and a thorough description of events overseen, should be recorded in the journal.
(2) Such diaries may be requested by any Criminal Court in connection with an investigation
or prosecution. These diaries will be utilised to help in the investigation/trial. They are not
admissible as evidence.

(3) The accused or his/her representative is not permitted or authorised to request and see
such diaries. However, sections 161 or 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 may apply if the
officer who created the journal utilised it to refresh his/her memory, or if the Court used the
diary to cross-examine and contradict such police officer.

Sections 161 and 145 are detailed here to help you better comprehend Section 172(3) of the
Cr.P.C.

The opposing party's entitlement to a document used for the purpose of refreshing memory is
mentioned in Section 161 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The accused may be permitted
to see the specific record at the Court's discretion, provided that the Court utilised such entry
to contradict a police officer or the police officer referred to such entry to refresh his
recollection. If such entry has not been utilised for any of the aforementioned objectives, the
accused has no right to refer to or use the entries, i.e., the accused has extremely restricted
access to any entries in a case diary.

Section 145 deals with cross-examination of witnesses in relation to earlier written or

reduced-to-writing statements made by him; nevertheless, such writings shall not be revealed
to him. His attention should merely be drawn to the elements of his statement that are being
utilised to contradict him before they are proven.