GUNTUPALLI APPA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the Order dated 3.6. 1994 passed by the Court of the VII Additional. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, the point which arises for consideration is as to whether Section 164, Cr. P.C. statement can be recorded by a Magistrate even if there is no requisition by the police to that effect and at the instance of a witness. The petitioner is cited as a witness to the case of the prosecution in P.R.C. No. 6 of 1994. It is stated that he was examined under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and in fact charge sheet has been filed enclosing the statements under Section 161, Cr. P.C., including that of the petitioner. After considerable time, the petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate requesting him to record his statement purporting to be under Section 164, Cr. P.C.; but the learned Magistrate has rejected the said application. Mr. D. Ramalingaswamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that statement under Section 164 of Cr. P.C., need not be recorded only at the instance and requisition of the police and that such statement can be recorded even at the instance of any person including that of a witness cited by the prosecution. Mr. M.N. Narasimha Reddy, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor defends the order of the Magistrate as being correct. Section 164 of Cr. P.C. reads as follows: Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial.' A reading of the said provision makes it amply clear that the Magistrate is competent to record the statement or confession, as the case may be, even without there being any requisition by the police. This view of mine is fortified by the judgment rendered in IN re: C. W. Cases. Again the Magistrate is also not precluded from recording such a confessional statement even after charge sheet is filed. This is so obvious from the words employed in the statutory provision under Section 164, Cr. P.C. or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. My above view is supported by the judgment of the Allahabad High Court rendered in Raja Ram v. State. Of course, the Magistrate is precluded from exercising his powers under Section 164 of Cr. P.C., once the inquiry or trial into the criminal case, commences. IN view of what is stated supra, I hold that a Magistrate can record confession or statement of any person under Section 164, Cr. P.C., even without there being any requisition in that regard by the police and voluntarily at the instance of a person seeking to make a confessional statement. But such a power has to be exercised by the Magistrate in rare cases and with caution. While the Magistrate is obligated to record a statement, if there is a requisition to that effect by the police, the Magistrate is not per force obligated to record such statement or confession under Section 164, Cr. P.C., at the instance of the person seeking to make the same. When there is no requisition by the police for recording a confessional statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C., and when such a requisition is made by a person voluntarily without the media of the police, the Magistrate has to exercise his discretion as to whether he should record such a statement or confession. I have scanned through the order of the court below and the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons as to why he rejected the plea of the petitioner to record his statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. That apart, the learned Magistrate was also disinclined to record the statement of the petitioner as the petitioner made his plea with undue delay as while the statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C., was recorded on 14.11.1993, he made a request to the Magistrate to record his statement under Section 164, Cr. P.C. only on 18.5.1994. I see the reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate as cogent and valid. Accordingly, I do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the impugned order. For the reasons stated supra, this Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.