Record in warrant-cases
Section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with record in warrant-cases. In all warrant-cases tried before a Magistrate, the evidence of each witness shall, as his examination proceeds, be taken down in writing either by the Magistrate himself or by his dictation in open Court or, where he is unable to do so owing to a physical or other incapacity, under his direction an The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) In all warrant-cases tried before a Magistrate, the evidence of each witness shall, as his examination proceeds, be taken down in writing either by the Magistrate himself or by his dictation in open Court or, where he is unable to do so owing to a physical or other incapacity, under his direction and superintendence, by an officer of the Court appointed by him in this behalf.
(2) Where the Magistrate causes the evidence to be taken down, he shall record a certificate that, the evidence could not be taken down by himself for the reasons referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) Such evidence shall ordinarily be taken down in the form of a narrative; but the Magistrate may, in his discretion take down, or cause to be taken down, any part of such evidence in the form of question and answer.
(4) The evidence so taken down shall be signed by the Magistrate and shall form part of the record.
Section 275, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 310 Record in warrant-cases Text carried over almost unchanged 96%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Rajender Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mandatory requirement under Section 275(4) Cr.P.C. that witness depositions in warrant cases must be signed by the Magistrate is not a curable irregularity but a fatal defect that renders the evidence inadmissible and vitiates the entire trial. Additionally, the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses is a fundamental component of the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, and denial of this right prejudices the accused and violates principles of natural justice. When an Investigating Officer fails to appear for cross-examination, the evidence collected by that officer remains unproved and cannot be relied upon for conviction.
On this section: Mandatory requirement for Magistrate to sign witness depositions in warrant cases; non-compliance renders evidence inadmissible
-
Manish vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings, witness demeanor must be observed during examination. The trial court cannot delegate the recording of witness statements to a Local Commissioner as this violates Section 275 Cr.P.C. and deprives the court of the opportunity to observe witness demeanor. The appellate court has the power to remit a case to the trial court for limited purpose of recording evidence afresh to ensure procedural correctness and eliminate technical errors.
On this section: Procedure for recording evidence - violation identified by appellate court regarding use of local commissioner
-
Pradhuman Bisht vs State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The recording of evidence by audio-video electronic means under the Proviso to Section 275(1) CrPC is discretionary and not mandatory. The Proviso deals with recording of evidence by audio-video electronic means and not with video recording of proceedings. Therefore, a trial court does not commit any illegality in refusing an application for video recording of criminal trial proceedings, even if the accused apprehends bias due to the complainant's father being an influential lawyer. The open court system provides sufficient transparency and protection, and if an accused apprehends bias, the appropriate remedy is to seek case transfer under the relevant provisions of law.
On this section: Provision regarding recording of evidence in warrant cases; Proviso introduced by Act 5 of 2009 w.e.f. 31.12.2009 permits audio-video electronic recording of evidence in presence of accused's advocate; court held this is discretionary, not mandatory
-
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Sohan Lal Bishnoi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to interfere with a trial court's discretionary order declining to permit video teleconference examination of a witness in a sessions trial, where the trial court has exercised its discretion judiciously, in good faith, on correct and plausible grounds, and where the witness has merely expressed partial reluctance rather than outright refusal to appear, and where the reasons for non-appearance (professional inconvenience and travel expenses) are not substantial or genuine grounds for dispensing with personal presence of witness, particularly when the trial court has already issued summons multiple times and the witness has not specifically stated inability to visit India for compelling reasons.
On this section: Procedure for recording evidence in summons trials. Permits recording of evidence by audio video electronic means in summons trials.
-
Sanjeeva Palan vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A trial court, when faced with an application under Section 284 Cr.P.C. for recording evidence through commission or video conferencing, must exercise its discretion by carefully considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, including the age, health, language barriers, safety concerns, and relocation of witnesses, and must weigh whether any prejudice would be caused to the parties if such alternative modes are allowed. The court cannot reject such applications merely on the ground that the trial is pending for a long time or that the witnesses are suspected of being absconders, without considering the legitimate difficulties faced by the witnesses. The interests of justice require that courts balance the need for expeditious trial with the practical difficulties and vulnerabilities of witnesses.
On this section: Provides for recording evidence through video conferencing as an alternative mode. The court noted that this facility is becoming increasingly available and should be considered.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… of witnesses as provided under Section 138 o f the Indian Evidence Act has received the af fidavits of witnesses and a ffidavits have been treated as examination-in-chie f o f witnesses. The procedure adopted by learned Magistrate has resulted in pre judice to accused. The valuable rights given to accused under Sections 273 and 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been violated. 10. Under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, witnesses shall be first examined in chief, crossexamined and then re-examined. The examination-in-chie f o f witnesses under Section 138 of the Evidence Act is controlled by Section 142 of the Evidence Act, which …
Questions about Section 275
What have the courts held on Section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Rajender Singh vs State of Haryana (10 Feb 2025) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Mandatory requirement for Magistrate to sign witness depositions in warrant cases; non-compliance renders evidence inadmissible. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2014 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 275, section 275 CRPC, section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Rajender Singh vs State of Haryana (10 Feb 2025).
What should I read with Section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 310 (Record in warrant-cases), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 275 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 275, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.