What is the key point about Section 164 CrPC from this case?

Only witnesses presented by the Investigating Officer or prosecution should be recorded under Section 164 CrPC. Random persons cannot approach the Magistrate to create statements.

Can a Magistrate record statements without the Investigating Officer?

The Court warned against allowing unsponsored people to get Section 164 statements recorded, as it could be misused to fabricate records in advance.

Why did the Supreme Court take this stance?

To prevent abuse. If everyone could record statements, culprits might send proxies to build early records that could later help them.

What happened in the case background?

After a homicide, some persons asked the High Court to get their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164. The Magistrate recorded them, but the order was later challenged up to the Supreme Court.

What should students remember for exams?

Section 164 is not an open door. Magistrates must avoid becoming a platform for unsponsored statements; the IO/prosecution channel the process.

Joginder Nahak v. State of Orissa (2000) 1 SCC 272

Criminal Procedure Section 164 CrPC India Supreme Court of India 2000 (2000) 1 SCC 272 ~5 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi

Location: India

Published: 02 Nov 2025

Slug: joginder-nahak-v-state-of-orissa-2000-1-scc-272

CASE_TITLE: Joginder Nahak v. State of Orissa PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 164 CrPC, Magistrate recording statements, Investigating Officer SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: unsponsored statements, abuse prevention, criminal procedure PUBLISH_DATE: 02 Nov 2025 AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court put a clear check on Section 164 CrPC: a Magistrate should not become a booth for anyone to record statements. Allowing unsponsored persons (not routed by the Investigating Officer/prosecution) to record statements can create ready-made defence material. Hence, random applications to record statements must be refused.

Judgment concept showing a Magistrate’s limited role under Section 164 CrPC

Issues

Can a Magistrate record statements under Section 164 without the Investigating Officer’s sponsorship?

Rules

If Magistrates are obliged to record statements for anyone who walks in, culprits may send people to create records in advance.
Therefore, Section 164 should be used through proper IO/prosecution channel, not by all and sundry.

Facts (Timeline)

12-08-1997: At Janumi Village (Ganjam, Orissa), Balaram Mohanty and his son were injured; Balaram later died. FIR lodged by Bhagaban Mohanty at Purusottampur PS.

Investigation: Jagadish Murty and three others were named. Police investigated and filed a final report.

Appellants’ claim: They were questioned under Section 161, but their statements were not kept in the Case Diary.

High Court move: They sought directions: IO to record Section 161 statements and Magistrate to record Section 164 statements.

HC Order (22-12-1997): Allowed them to apply before the Magistrate; Magistrate to pass appropriate orders. Statements were then recorded.

Recall bid: Informant sought recall. Division Bench dismissed the writ; imposed costs ₹2,500 each for a frivolous petition; noted no mala fides by IO.

SLP: Appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline illustration of events leading to the Supreme Court ruling in Joginder Nahak

Arguments

Appellants

Wanted their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 to be part of the record.
Sought court directions to ensure this.

Respondent/State

Opposed unsolicited Section 164 statements.
Warned of misuse if anyone could walk in to record statements.

Judgment (Supreme Court)

All and sundry cannot approach the Magistrate for recording statements under Section 164.
Witnesses unsponsored by the IO/prosecution cannot seek Section 164 examination.
The rule prevents advance record-building that could aid culprits.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 164 is not a public window. The Magistrate’s power is controlled to avoid misuse. Recording must be routed through the investigation stream (IO/prosecution), not individual walk-ins.

Why It Matters

Prevents fabricated early statements.
Preserves the integrity of investigation.
Gives Magistrates a clear gatekeeping role.

Key Takeaways

Section 164 ≠ open counter. IO/prosecution must sponsor.
Magistrate safeguards against misuse and record-planting.
Students: Link this with fair investigation and due process.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “S164 is Sponsored” — S2.

Sponsor: IO/prosecution routes the witness.
Screen: Magistrate screens out random applicants.
Secure: Record stays reliable and fair.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can a Magistrate record statements under Section 164 without IO involvement?

Rule: Allowing open access would let culprits plant statements. Section 164 should work via IO/prosecution.

Application: Here, persons sought to record statements outside that channel; risk of misuse was real.

Conclusion: Unsponsored persons cannot seek Section 164 recording; Magistrate must refuse.

Glossary

Section 164 CrPC: Provision for recording confessions/statements by a Magistrate during investigation.
Investigating Officer (IO): Police officer leading the investigation and routing witnesses.
Unsponsored witness: A person not presented through the IO/prosecution for Section 164 recording.