Section 145 CrPC evidence rules: defective affidavits, uncertified copies, and admissions in Section 107 statements

Proceedings under Section 145 CrPC are summary in nature and depend largely on affidavit and documentary evidence, so affidavits must be properly sworn and verified before they can be acted on, although defects may be cured by fresh affidavits where no timely objection was taken. Uncertified copies of public documents are inadmissible; certified copies are required, subject to later production on remand if necessary. Statements recorded by a police officer in proceedings under Section 107 CrPC are not excluded as police-investigation statements and may be used as admissions, though their evidentiary weight depends on the facts. The document emphasises that admissibility requirements apply, but curable procedural defects should not frustrate a summary inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether affidavits used in proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be properly sworn and verified before the court can act on them; (ii) whether uncertified copies of public documents are admissible in evidence in such proceedings; (iii) whether statements recorded by a police officer in connection with proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be used as admissions.

Issue (i): whether affidavits used in proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be properly sworn and verified before the court can act on them.

Analysis: Proceedings under Section 145 are summary in nature and are intended to prevent breach of peace by determining actual possession. Since affidavits constitute the principal evidence in such proceedings, they must conform to the requirements of a valid affidavit. An affidavit confined to matters of knowledge and, where based on belief, disclosing the grounds of belief, is the proper form contemplated by Order 19 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. Affidavits not properly verified cannot be acted upon, but where no objection is raised before the magistrate, the defect should ordinarily be allowed to be cured by filing fresh affidavits in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The affidavits relied on were not properly usable as evidence, but the defect was capable of being made good on remand.

Issue (ii): whether uncertified copies of public documents are admissible in evidence in such proceedings.

Analysis: Contents of documents must be proved by primary or secondary evidence. In the case of public documents, proof is by certified copies. A copy which is not certified as required by the Evidence Act is inadmissible. Where such objection was not taken before the trial magistrate, the party may be afforded an opportunity to produce certified copies.

Conclusion: The uncertified copies could not be treated as admissible evidence, but the matter could be cured by production of certified copies on remand.

Issue (iii): whether statements recorded by a police officer in connection with proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be used as admissions.

Analysis: Statements recorded in connection with proceedings under Section 107 are not statements made in an inquiry into an offence, so the restrictions applicable to police statements in criminal investigations do not govern them. Such statements, if containing admissions by a party, may be used as admissions, though their evidentiary value must be assessed on the facts and circumstances of the case. A police report not based on personal knowledge cannot itself be read as evidence.

Conclusion: Such statements are legally admissible as admissions, subject to evaluation of their evidentiary value.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded, the magistrate's orders were set aside, and both matters were sent back for fresh disposal in accordance with law after allowing the evidentiary defects to be rectified.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, affidavits and documentary material must satisfy the legal requirements of admissibility, but procedural defects in their form should not defeat a summary inquiry where they can be cured without injustice; admissions contained in statements recorded outside a police investigation remain admissible subject to their evidentiary weight.

---