Criminal Procedure Code

Jogendra Nahak v. State of Orissa

(2000) 1 SCC 272

Facts

A serious murder case was under police investigation.
Certain persons claimed to be witnesses to relevant events.
Instead of being produced by the investigating officer, they approached the Magistrate directly.
They requested that their statements be recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
The Magistrate declined to record the statements because the witnesses had not been sponsored or produced by the investigating agency.
The High Court directed that the statements should be recorded.
The matter reached the Supreme Court to determine whether any person may independently walk into a Magistrate’s court and demand recording under Section 164. ( )

Whether a Magistrate may record a Section 164 statement at the direct request of a person who has not been produced or sponsored by the investigating agency.
Whether such a person has an enforceable right to demand recording.

Section 164 CrPC empowers a Magistrate to record confessions and statements:
during the course of investigation; or
at any time afterwards but before commencement of inquiry or trial.
The provision belongs to the statutory scheme governing investigation.
Recording under Section 164 is a judicial act connected with a pending criminal investigation.
A person has no unrestricted right to bypass the investigating officer and require the Magistrate to record a statement.
Ordinarily, the witness must be produced or sponsored through the investigating process.
This prevents:
manufactured statements;
rival groups creating parallel investigative records;
pressure upon Magistrates;
accused persons planting favourable witnesses; and
confusion regarding the official investigation.
The rule does not prevent a person from:
giving information to police;
approaching senior police authorities;
making a complaint before a Magistrate;
or appearing as a witness at the proper stage.
Section 183 BNSS now corresponds to Section 164 CrPC.

The Supreme Court considered the practical consequences of allowing any individual to demand recording.
In a contested criminal case, both sides could send large numbers of persons to the Magistrate.
The Magistrate would then become a repository of competing unscreened statements unrelated to the investigating officer’s assessment.
This would indirectly create a parallel investigation conducted through the court.
Section 164 was not intended to permit such a process.
Its principal purposes include:
preserving an important statement;
ensuring voluntariness;
reducing later pressure on a witness;
and recording confessions under judicial safeguards.
Those purposes operate within, not outside, an existing investigation.
The Court also distinguished a Magistrate’s judicial independence from investigative initiation.
Once a witness is properly produced, the Magistrate must independently determine whether and how the statement should be recorded.
The investigating officer cannot dictate its contents.
But the Magistrate is not required to receive every stranger who claims to possess information.
The persons concerned could still submit their version to the police.
If police improperly refused to examine them, lawful supervisory or complaint remedies could be used.
They could not obtain a Section 164 record simply to strengthen one side’s future case.
The High Court’s direction therefore expanded the provision beyond its statutory function.

The Supreme Court held that persons not produced or sponsored by the investigating agency cannot insist upon recording of their statements under Section 164 CrPC.
The High Court’s contrary direction was set aside.
The decision preserves the Magistrate’s judicial role while preventing Section 164 from becoming a mechanism for private or parallel investigation.
The correct title is Jogendra Nahak, although it is sometimes listed as Joginder Nahak. ( )