Procedure in regard to such evidence when completed
Section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with procedure in regard to such evidence when completed. As the evidence of each witness taken under section 275 or section 276 is completed, it shall be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and shall, if necessary, be corrected. 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 Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried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) As the evidence of each witness taken under section 275 or section 276 is completed, it shall be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and shall, if necessary, be corrected.
(2) If the witness denies the correctness of any part of the evidence when the same is read over to him, the Magistrate or presiding Judge may, instead of correcting the evidence, make a memorandum thereon of the objection made to it by the witness and shall add such remarks as he thinks necessary.
1 Subs. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 20, for sub-section (2) (w.e.f. 18-12- 1978).
(3) If the record of the evidence is in a language different from that in which it has been given and the witness does not understand that language, the record shall be interpreted to him in the language in which it was given, or in a language which he understands.
Section 278, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 313 Procedure in regard to such evidence when completed 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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
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.
-
Saikrupa Sugar vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mandatory requirement under Section 278 Cr.P.C. to read over witness deposition immediately after completion of examination-in-chief and cross-examination cannot be bypassed. The witness must be given opportunity to verify accuracy of recorded evidence and point out any corrections before the deposition is finalized. Corrections to witness testimony cannot be made at a later date without following this procedure, even if the corrections appear to be typographical errors. The trial court's failure to follow this procedure is a procedural violation that vitiates the recorded evidence.
On this section: Mandatory requirement that after completion of examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the deposition shall be read over to the witness by or under the direction of the Court, and the witness shall be asked whether he wishes to make any corrections in his deposition. The court held this provision was not followed by the trial Magistrate, violating the witness's right to verify accuracy of recorded evidence.
-
Saikrupa Sugar vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Magistrate must comply with Section 278 Cr.P.C. by reading over the witness deposition to the witness immediately after completion of examination and cross-examination. Any correction to the deposition must be made only after the witness has been given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the recorded evidence. Failure to follow this mandatory procedure vitiates the corrected evidence and renders the trial court's order allowing corrections liable to be quashed. The witness must be afforded the opportunity to explain whether any corrections are typographical mistakes or otherwise, and this opportunity cannot be denied based on the trial court's memory or the respondent's assertion of typographical errors.
On this section: Section 278 Cr.P.C. mandates that after completion of examination and cross-examination of a witness, the deposition must be read over to the witness to enable him to point out any errors or omissions. The court held that the trial Magistrate failed to comply with this mandatory provision, which is a fundamental procedural safeguard to ensure accuracy of recorded evidence and protect the rights of the accused.
-
Tuncay Alankus vs C.b.i.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the right to a fair trial includes the right to an interpreter who can accurately translate proceedings in a language understood by the accused, the trial court has discretion to assess whether a request for change of interpreter is warranted based on the actual proceedings, demonstrated prejudice, and interests of justice. The trial court's assessment of interpreter competence based on academic qualifications and the conduct of proceedings is entitled to deference, and a request for change of interpreter cannot be granted merely on the accused's assertion of incompetence without demonstrating actual prejudice or failure of justice. The provisions of Sections 278, 279, and 282 CrPC are mandatory in requiring provision of an interpreter, but do not mandate replacement of an interpreter upon every request by the accused.
On this section: Requires that evidence of witnesses be read over to the accused in his presence; if the record is in a different language than the evidence was given, it must be interpreted to the accused in a language he understands
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.
-
… gives evidence in a language other than the language of the Court and if practicable it may be taken down in that language, but if it is not practicable to do so a true translation of his evidence in the language of the Court shall be prepared and signed by the Magistrate or the presiding Judge. Sub-section (3) to section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if the evidence of a witness is recorded in a language different from that in which it has been given by him and the witness does not understand that language, the record shall be interpreted to him in the language in which it was given or in a language which he …
-
… So it is clear from the above decision that, even if the petitioner wants to make some correction in the deposition recorded by the presiding officer, it cannot be corrected by the court as intended by the witness. But as mentioned in Section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it can only be recorded as a memorandum noting that, after the statement was read over, the witnesses has pointed out certain corrections and that correction in the words of witness has to be recorded as such by the presiding officer and he shall add such 12 remarks as he …
Questions about Section 278
What have the courts held on Section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Saikrupa Sugar vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (03 Apr 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Mandatory requirement that after completion of examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the deposition shall be read over to the witness by or under the direction of the Court, and the witness shall be asked whether he wishes to make any corrections in his deposition. The court held this provision was not followed by the trial Magistrate, violating the witness's right to verify accuracy of recorded evidence. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2008 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 278 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 278, section 278 CRPC, section 278 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. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Saikrupa Sugar vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana (03 Apr 2018).
What should I read with Section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 275 (Record in warrant-cases), section 276 (Record in trial before Court of Session), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 313 (Procedure in regard to such evidence when completed), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 278, 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.