Information as to commission of offences
Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with information as to commission of offences. No Magistrate or police-officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no revenue- officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
No Magistrate or police-officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence, and no revenue- officer shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence against the public revenue.
Explanation.–– “Revenue-officer” in this section means any officer employed in or about the business of any branch of the public revenue.]
Section 125, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 131 Information as to commission of offences Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Referred to by 5
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.
-
Mahendra Rajendra Thakur vs The State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
All three ingredients of Section 489(C) IPC - possession of counterfeit notes, knowledge that they are counterfeit, and intention to use them as genuine - were proved against the appellants through: (1) direct evidence of recovery of 48 counterfeit notes from their possession; (2) expert report from India Security Press confirming all notes were counterfeit; (3) circumstantial evidence and testimony of accomplice witnesses establishing knowledge and intention; (4) the appellants' failure to offer any explanation for their possession. Therefore, the conviction under Section 489(C) r/w 34 IPC is justified. However, considering the small quantity of notes and the substantial pre-trial custody already undergone (ranging from 19 months 11 days to 21 months 10 days), the sentence should be reduced to time already served rather than the three years imposed by the trial court.
On this section: Cited to protect the identity of police informers; court held that information from informers need not be recorded as FIR to protect informer confidentiality
-
State vs Yashsvi Somvanshi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Conviction cannot be based solely on a confession made to RPF officers when the investigation is admitted to be biased and corroborative material (like witness testimony or bank records) is absent.
On this section: Principles regarding judicial appreciation of evidence.
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.
-
… It was obtained and repaid. The handwriting expert opinion Ex.P.52 has been marked. There is no dispute in the cross examination. For registering the FIR without source report, it is not required to mention in view of Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act. Except reappreciation of evidence, the Court cannot interfere in the findings. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeals. 11. Having heard the arguments on both side and perused the records, the point that arises for my consideration are. - "1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond …
Questions about Section 125
What have the courts held on Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Mahendra Rajendra Thakur vs The State of Maharashtra (07 Jun 2007) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Cited to protect the identity of police informers; court held that information from informers need not be recorded as FIR to protect informer confidentiality. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below. They run from 2007 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act?
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: IEA 125, section 125 IEA, section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mahendra Rajendra Thakur vs The State of Maharashtra (07 Jun 2007).
What should I read with Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 131 (Information as to commission of offences), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 125 of the Indian Evidence Act, cited as IEA 125, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 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 e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.