Section 291A CrPC: Identification Report of Magistrate
Section 291A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dealt with the evidentiary use of an identification report made under the hand of an Executive Magistrate in respect of a person or property. This page explains the provision as it applied under the CrPC before the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force.
Meaning and purpose of Section 291A CrPC
An identification report for the purpose of Section 291A is a report of identification, concerning a person or property, made under the hand of an Executive Magistrate. The section created a statutory rule permitting such a document to be used as evidence in an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC even when the Executive Magistrate was not initially called as a witness.
The provision therefore simplified proof of the Magistrate's identification report while preserving safeguards relating to statements contained in that report and the right of the prosecution or accused to require examination of the Magistrate.
Text and effect of Section 291A
Sub-section (1): A document purporting to be an identification report under the hand of an Executive Magistrate concerning a person or property could be used as evidence in an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code although the Magistrate was not called as a witness.
Proviso: If the report contained a statement of a suspect or witness attracting Sections 21, 32, 33, 155 or 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the statement could be used only in accordance with the applicable provision of that Act.
Sub-section (2): The Court could summon and examine the Magistrate on its own if it considered this appropriate. It was required to summon and examine the Magistrate when the prosecution or the accused applied for such examination.
Legal provisions referred to in the proviso
| Evidence Act provision | Subject under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 |
|---|---|
| Section 21 | Proof of admissions against the person making them, and circumstances in which admissions may be proved by or on behalf of that person. |
| Section 32 | Cases in which statements by a person who is dead, cannot be found, has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot reasonably be procured are relevant. |
| Section 33 | Relevancy, subject to statutory conditions, of evidence given by a witness in an earlier judicial proceeding or before a person authorised by law to take it. |
| Section 155 | Modes by which the credit of a witness could be impeached. |
| Section 157 | Former statements of a witness that could be proved to corroborate later testimony concerning the same fact, subject to the section. |
When could an identification report be used?
The statutory conditions were that the document purported to be a report of identification, it was under the hand of an Executive Magistrate, and it related to identification of a person or property. If these conditions were met, Section 291A permitted evidentiary use of the report without making the Magistrate's appearance an automatic prerequisite.
Can the Magistrate still be summoned?
Yes. Section 291A(2) expressly preserved judicial scrutiny. The Court could summon the Executive Magistrate if it thought fit. More importantly, where either the prosecution or the accused applied for examination, the statutory language required the Court to summon and examine the Magistrate regarding the subject matter of the report.
Insertion of Section 291A
Section 291A was inserted into the Code of Criminal Procedure by Section 24 of Act 25 of 2005 and came into force on 23 June 2006.
Corresponding provision under BNSS
Section 327 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponds to Section 291A CrPC and continues the rule concerning identification reports of Executive Magistrates. The newer provision refers to the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 instead of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Key takeaway
Under Section 291A CrPC, an Executive Magistrate's identification report relating to a person or property could be received in evidence without first calling the Magistrate. That procedural convenience did not make every statement recorded in the report automatically usable: the Evidence Act safeguards remained applicable, and either side could require the Magistrate to be summoned and examined.