Topics to be covered:

1. Extent - S1(2) - full country, including J&K

2. S.5 CrPC
Special law overrides general law -for eg, the procedure laid down in TADA and POTA.

Kundla Boji Reddy v. State of AP - state govt issued notification for a new code but some
areas, old code applied. But in this case, the full trial happened as per new code, which was
wrong, so the conviction + sentence quashed - because the entire procedure was wrong.

(If trial is quashed fully, new proceedings won’t vitiate double jeopardy). -->Double jeopardy:
previous cases should have been tried in a competent court.

3. Vitiated by jurisdiction - only if rank of the Magistrate is lower (S.461), not by territorial
jurisdiction (S.462)
460 - even if Magistrate has erred, it does not vitiate the proceedings.
461 - it vitiates the proceedings, because all of those proceedings need to be done by a
Magistrate based on a certain rank.
462 - territory based jurisdiction does not vitiate, unless it results in failure of justice.

Definitions:

2(h) - investigation - first stage of a case

Delhi admin v. Ram Singh - evidence should be collected by police officers with power to
investigate or by person authorized by mag to investi.

Maha Singh v. State - investigation by a police officer or by any person auth by Mag. involves
extracting info from witnesses, examining scientific evidence, collecting medical reports, etc.

Baldev Singh - arrest is part of investigation. It is to protect the victim and to prevent obstacles
to investigation. It can be used to question the accused.

The last step of investigation is preparation of chargesheet by the police, giving a detailed report
of the investigation.

2(g) - inquiry - second stage of a case - linked with judicial proceeding in 2(i)
Conducted by a Mag for ascertaining and clarifying facts. Framing the charge/discharging part
of inquiry, framing the charge will also become the first step in the trial.
Last step of inquiry is framing the charge (list of offences that accused will be tried
for)/discharging (clearing him of any involvement in the case).

2(i) - judicial proceeding

Any proceeding where evidence is legally taken on oath. (even corp fraud bodies, railway
officers, revenue courts, SHARIC, tahsildar)

2(a) - bailable offence

Bail is a right and not a discretion
S.436 - in what cases bail can be taken
Bailable offences found in 1st schedule and any other law which declares offences bailable.

Rasiklal v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani - court or officer before whom accused asks for
bail shall release him on terms that appear to them to be reasonable (subjective satisfaction
test). They can also discharge him on executing a bond rather than a bail.

Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purushottam - HC has power to quash bail if they believe it
is prejudicial to a fair trial, but use power sparingly.

Non bailable offence - bail is a matter of discretion.

Non-bailable warrant must be given by court and not police.

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS TO COURT OF SESSIONS: (S.209)

Chief Judicial Magistrate will look at all the cases, prima facie identify the offence (this is not the
same as charge), and allocate it to different courts accordingly for cognizance, charge and trial -
mostly for sessions cases. This is a pre-trial procedure. He also will remand the accused to
custody, and send copies of FIR, Chargesheet, 161 statements, 164 statements, etc.
S,193 has a safeguard, where a court of sessions can’t take cognizance before CJM commits
the case to them.

COGNIZANCE IN OTHER KINDS OF CASES

Under S.192, CJM will take cognizance and then make over the cases to other courts
competent to try it. Even a Mag of First Class can take cognizance and make it over to other
competent courts.
Apart from the CJM empowering Mags to take cognizance, Mags of First class automatically
and Mags of second class, upon being empowered by CJM, can also take cognizance on their
own under S.190 for other cases, especially used for private complaints, complaints which the
police refuse to register, and non-cognizable offences.

Only after taking cognizance, the court can initiate enquiry, frame the charges and start the trial.

Kinds of trial
__________________________________________________
Investigation:

Duty of people to report offences:

S.39 - punishable under S.176 IPC
S. 40 - duty of village officers to prepare a report of offences in their area
S.19 POCSO - obli on individuals, S.20 - media, studio, photographic facilities, hotel, lodge,
hospital, club, S.21 - punishment for not reporting

S.154 - FIR - cognizable offence

What is it
Any information transmitted with the view of narrating the circumstances of a crime to enable
the police to start investigation.

State of Bom v. Rusy Mistry - FIR is not defined but is a report under S.154 of CrPC.

Jagdish Singh v. State of MP (which is the FIR)

If an information is conveyed to a police officer to narrate an incident and ask them to
investigate, thats an FIR. but if it is just to get some orders or notify summarily what happened,
thats not an FIR.

Who should record it

Rank should be an Station Inspector (S.154(1) - ‘officer in charge of a police station’)

State of Haryana v. Bhajan lal - police has no option but to register FIR if they get information
of a cognizable offence.

Zero FIR
State of AP v. Punati Ramube - refusal to register FIR is a dereliction of duty. Police should
register first, can forward it later if it is not under their jurisdiction. It is the duty of the police to
record “shall record”. If police records it on the basis of talking to witnesses, then it is hit by 162.
Police can go to crime scene and do some investigation before FIR, but should not examine
witnesses and write what happened on the basis of that.

2013, 2018 amendments to CrPC:

Specific offences against women must be recorded by a woman police officer.
If the woman is disabled, police must go to their house and get it recorded by a spl interpreter
on video. Can be sent to the Mag and registered as a 164 statement, and so the witness doesn’t
have to testify during the actual trial.

If police refuses to record, complaint can be sent to the SP, who can either take up investigation
himself or order his subordinates to do. (154(3) r/w 36)
You can also lodge a complaint with the Mag under S.200.

When it should be recorded

Delay
Ram Jag v. State of UP - the test is whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of
suspicion on the prosecution?

Harpal Singh v. State of HP - delay in rape cases acceptable because it is a case of family
honour

State of HP v. Gian Chand - cant disregard PP case just because of FIR. if they can explain it
is fine.

immediately, first instance, minimal inspection,

How it should be recorded:

● It should be reduced into writing
● Should contain names of witness, material facts, names of accused should be recorded
● Can be recorded even on the basis of phone calls, fax, emails etc

Sukharam v. State of MH - as long as the telephone call is clear, accurate and the information
indicates a cogn offence, it can be recorded.

● Can be recorded even on the basis of anonymous tipoffs

● It has to be signed by the victim or informant, in the case of anonymous tipoffs, IO can
sign it (but no administration of oath) - refusal to sign statement liable under S.180 IPC

How many copies to be made - 4 (PO, victim, Mag, one attached with Charge Sheet (CS))
accused/any interest person can get a copy of the FIR from the court, because once sent to the
mag, it becomes a public document.

FIR by an accused - not barred

Aghnoo Nagesia allows the FIR to be registered. But in case it is a confession, better to get ir
recorded under 164.

A non-confessional FIR can be used against the accused (S.21 IEA); a confessional FIR can’t
(S.27 IEA).

Evidentiary value
It is admissible under S.157 IEA for corroboration by PP, once proved, can be used by the cross
under S.145 IEA for contradiction.

Multiple FIRs
Usually not allowed, only the first information is to be recorded, subsequent information can be
recorded as a S.161 statement.

Exception:
Babubhai v. State of Gujarat
If there are parties involved in a crime who want to make cross allegations against each other,
then possibility of recording 2 FIRs.

State of AP v. Punati Ramube

information or cross allegation? (sameness test)
If its the same incident or part of the same transaction, second FIR can be quashed. In the
same incident or transaction, if it is a counter allegation and the accused are diff, then allowed.
Sameness test only applies if the facts are similar, if the offences being alleged are completely
different, then second FIR is permissible.

S.200 - Non-cognizable offences

A complaint may be lodged with the Mag to record a NC offence. Mag may take cognizance or
order for investigation.

S.155 - Mag order for non-cog cases, investigation

When the police gets information of a NC offence, they must prepare an NCR (non cognizable
offence report) and forward it to the Mag. Until he orders, police cannot investigate.

155(3) r/w 156(1) - police can investigate NC cases.

S.156 - investigation by police

Sub-Inspector or greater rank can investigate.

156(1) Police officer have powers to investigate cognizable offences without the order of the
magistrate. They can investigate NC offences after receiving an order of the Mag under 156(3).

156(2) makes it easy for police to investigate, they can’t be called in and questioned on the
grounds of lack of jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction is important, but if a wrong police station
investigates, it won’t be quashed. Magistrate has no power to stop even if he comes to know of
such wrong investigation w/o territorial jurisdiction.
S.N. Sharma v. Bipin Kumar - no power of the victim in case there is malafide exercise of the
power of police to investigate. Remedy is to invoke a writ jurisdiction.

156(3) - Mag can order for investigation

Mohd yosouf v. Afaq Khan - “The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate,
before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the
Code. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to
direct the police to register an FIR. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while
directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is
the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable
offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps
contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.”

(other cases where mag can order for investigation:

● S.156(3) - mag can order for investigation of a C/NC offence - before taking cognizance
● S.159 - mag can order investigation before inquiry - prevent the police from dropping the
case
● S.202 - after taking cognizance or while taking cognizance under S.190, Mag can order
more investigation before trial - for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is
sufficient ground for proceeding. This is after taking cognizance and after committal
proceedings. (Mohd. Yosouf v. Afaq Khan)

r/w S.190 - Mag can take cognizance

S.190(1)(a) - based on a pvt complaint (S.200)
S.190(a)(b) - based on police report (S.154/157/173)
S.190(1)(c) - based on information from third parties or mag himself )

HN Rishbud v. State of Delhi (v imp)

Investigation consists of:
1. Proceeding to the spot
2. Ascertainment of facts and circumstances
3. Discovery and arrest of suspected offenders
4. Collection of evidence:
a) Examination of persons and reducing it to writing
b) Search and seizure
c) Opinion as to whether case should go for trial + filing chargesheet

S.157 - keeping Mag in the loop

When a police officer comes to know of an offence that he has the power to investigate under
S.156, he will immediately send a report to the Mag who is empowered to take cognizance
based on the report (S.190(1)(b)). The rank of the Mag (usually CJM, or Mag of First Class) and
the territorial jurisdiction of the Mag who the report is being sent to is imp.

The report can be FIR/NCR/any other prelim report.This is for both C and NC offences.

Then the SI can investigate in person or depute it to someone below him to investigate the facts
and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest
of the offender. So, all this happens contemporaneously when he comes to know of the offence.

Under this section, seizure and search memo and arrest memo and all are sent.

He need not go and investigate if the accused is reported by name, and the case is not serious,
or if he feels there is no reason to investigate. This has to be mentioned in the report as well,
and to the informant.

Mahabir Singh v. Delhi Administration - Non compliance with S.154 and S.157 doesn’t cause
a ground to throw away prosecution case, but court can draw an adverse inference. Evidence
may not be appreciated especially if it prejudices accused.

S.158 - how these reports should be submitted ^^

Competent officer, can be delegated

S.159
Mag, after receiving report, can order further investigation, or he or any deputy can be ordered
to conduct an inquiry, or he can dismiss the case.

S. 160 - witness attendance

Investigating officer w jurisdiction should given order in writing calling people.

Purpose
Can be to orally examine, TIP, need some signs, can be anything - no restriction

Who does it cover

Narayan Swami v Emperor
It is only meant for witnesses. But it can include suspects who may later on be accused, but not
charged yet. (overruled in Nandini Satpathy).

(If person is accused, should ideally use arrest provisions (under S.41) or issue notice of
appearance to them.)

Special cases of witness examination at home

Proviso to sub-section (1) - women, PwDs, less than 15 and above 65 male
S.174 will apply if you’ve been summoned but don’t appear - 1 month simple imprisonment
and/or Rs.500 fine.

S.161 - witness statements:

Gives power to certain police officers to examine witnesses. Discretion of the police officer
whether or not to call some witnesses and discretion of deciding whether to reduce in writing.
Even if this is done, discretion to decide whether it needs to be included in the chargesheet or
not. Reducing the statement into writing need not be in the same language as the one in which
answers are given by witness.

Zahira Habidullah v GJ
Recording is not mandatory.

Balkrishna v. State of Orissa

Record the statement as and when it is given to ensure accuracy in recording. Unexplained
delay of 10 days in writing down witness statements + contradictory - no evidentiary value.

Examination of witnesses must be done quickly in the course of investigation.

Ram Singh v. State of MP
Belated examination of witnesses throws down on PP’s case.

Whether it applies to accused?

Nandini Satpathy v. PL Dani
● S. 161 enables the police to examine the accused during investigation;
● The prohibitive sweep of Art. 20(3) goes back to the stage of police interrogation also

● The ban on self-accusation and the right to silence, while on investigation or trial is
under way, goes beyond that case and protects the accused in regard to other
offences pending or imminent, which may deter him from voluntary disclosure of
criminatory matter
● Compelled testimony' must be read as evidence procured by:
○ physical threats or violence
○ psychic torture,
○ atmospheric pressure,
○ environmental coercion
○ Tiring interrogative prolixity,
○ overbearing and intimidatory methods

● Basically if there is any mode of pressure, subtle or crude, mental or physical, direct
or indirect, but sufficiently substantial, applied by the policeman for obtaining
information from an accused strongly suggestive of guilt it becomes compelled
testimony violative of Art. 20(3).
 ● Threat of prosecution, not by itself, but if repeated multiple times to intimidate the
witness.

Accused persons should answer questions if they don’t incriminate him clearly. Can refuse to
answer even if they incriminate him in some other case, wrt some other offence even if
investigation is not underway for the same. The material must incriminate only the person
making the statement and not someone else.

State of MH v. Atma Ram; State of AP v. Venugopal

Can’t use force or compulsion to get a 161 statement

Kathi Kalu Oghad

For the accused, there is also the right under Art 20(3) which protects him from making
testimonial statements but does not include protection for fingerprints, handwriting or voice
samples, blood sample, DNA collection, etc (basically real evidence not in the special
knowledge of the accused). The test is that a witness/accused is only protected from special
testimonial knowledge.
To invoke right under 20(3), you need to be formally charged.

(Possibly strengthened by Puttaswamy v. Union of India).

Selvi v S/o KA
can’t compel narco analysis, lie detector, brain mapping tests as accused may give testimonial
statements exclusively in their knowledge without voluntariness (this violating kathi kalu). If
accused wants to undergo (like in Kasab), it has to be voluntary and need court permission. In
any case, their use is regulated by 162.

S.162

State of Karnataka v. Rajan

162 is only a bar on testimony and not on real evidence, or search and seizure reports, stolen
articles etc.

Conditions for 162:

1. ‘Any person’
● 162 applies to statements by witness or accused (Mahabir v Bihar)

2. Statement during investigation

 ○ Doesn’t include real evidence, signature, statements made to third parties etc.
○ Statement must be made during investigation (and hence, after FIR has been
lodged - but this can be manipulated so generally have to figure out when first
info was received)
○ includes confessional statements by accused (Aghnoo Nagesia)

● State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani; Jit Singh v. State of Punjab

Site plan made on the basis of IO’s inspection and talking to witnesses.
Whatever was observed by talking to witnesses hit by 162. IO’s own
observations about site plan admissible.

● George v. State of Kerala

Statements contained in an inquest report - if based on what IO saw or
observed, admissible, but hit by 162 if made on the basis of talking to witnesses.

3. To police officer

● Police officer is someone who can writeup the chargesheet and bring finality to
the investigation.

● State of UP v. Vyas Tiwari

162 doesn’t apply in cases of railway police under Railway Property Act.

○ Similarly, statements made to Serious Fraud Investigation office under

companies act not hit by S.162.
○ Both railway police and SFIO administer oath, so it becomes a judicial
proceedings and has safeguards. Also, no expectation of compulsion (can be
critiqued tho).

4. About whatever special knowledge the witness has

Can’t ask person to sign the 161 statement if reduced to writing and cant use 161 statements in
the inquiry or in the trial.

Mahabir v. State of Bihar

The bar under 162 is only for use of statements but they can be recorded in the first place

Evidentiary value
Prosecutor can ask the witness to repeat the statements during chief exam, and then once it is
duly proved (proved means the witness’ statement in court which matches the 161 statement
exactly), 161 statements may be used by the defence for the purpose of contradiction under
S.145 IEA.

Gana Kanta Das v Assam

draw PW attention to his previous statement, give him chance to explain, mark contradicted
statement and make judge mark it in his record. Need to do all these for contradiction to be
accepted.

Phino v PB: can only contradict PW using 162 statement, not a Court witness or Defence
Witness. Further, Court can’t use 162 statement to corroborate under S. 157 IEA.

Tahsildar Singh Case

Court or defence witness statements can be used for contradiction or corroboration. Bar only on
PW statements.

Exceptions to such use:

1. DD under S. 32 IEA
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
DD not encouraged

Hareja Ali v. State of Assam

DD not altogether excluded. Used as per its veracity.
2. discoveries under S. 27 IEA
3. Under S. 165 IEA, judge can also ask questions (chief or cross) to witnesses - 162
applies here as well

All statements made to police are recorded in station diary - S. 172 CrPC - usually confidential
but can be examined by court

S.164 - judicial confession

How to record laid down in S.281.

Meaning:
Pakala Narayan Swamy:
A confession is one which must admit in terms of the offence or substantially all the ingredients
which constitute the offence. A gravely incriminating fact or statement alone isnt a confession.

Elements:
Animus confidetendi + actus reus

Conditions:
● Freely and voluntarily
● made without threat/promise (exception S.306 crpc)
 ● With full knowledge of consequences
● Only judicial mag (whether he has juris or not)
● video/audio means, w lawyer (not a right, upto accused to request a lawyer)

Includes accused as well as witness statements (164(5)). Recorded and signed by accused,
mag makes a memorandum at the footnote about willingess.

Additional safeguards:

Kuthu Goala v. State of Assam

Warnings in 164 are illustrative and not exhaustive. Mag should tell accused he is an
independent power and not related to police, to make him feel less pressurized.

Judge Rules
Object of the section is to find out whether confession was voluntary or not.

Hemachandra Nayak v. State of Assam

Voluntary when made by the accused out of repentence after due caution, with reasonable time
for reflection, in order to remove completely any threat, torture by the arresting agency and to
preclude tutoring.

If accused doesn’t want to make a confession, can be transferred from PC → JC.

Discretionary power, police can approach higher court for an order

Voluntariness:

Shankaria v. State of Raj

Twin tests to evaluate a confession:
1. Confession was voluntary
2. Confession was true and trustworthy

Bharat v. State of Up
Confessions can be used if court is satisfied that they are true and voluntary. Truth is adjudged
in the context of the entire prosecution case. Confession must fit into the proved facts and not
run counter to them. If all requirements are satisfied, most patent piece of evidence against the
maker.

Retracted confessions
Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Raj
Court cannot base conviction on retracted confession only, without any corroboration. It may still
form the basis of conviction if satisfied that it was initially made truly and voluntarily.

Haroon Haji Abdullah v. State of MH

A retracted confession must be looked upon with greater suspicion unless the reasons for
making the confession itself are false on the face of it.

Salim AKhtar v. State of WB

Court must look at reason of conviction and retraction. Balancing test. Retracted confession
requires the general assurance that retraction was an afterthought, and earlier statement was
true and voluntary, then it can be used.

Vinod Solanki v. UoI

Court must bear in mind the time of retraction, the nature, manner etc. requirement is to identify
threat, coercion etc. court will ascertain by its own examination.

Md.Ajmal Md.Amir Kasab @Abu ... vs State Of Maharashtra

In this case, Mag sent him to JC to think over whether he wanted to confess, explained all the
safeguards and the position of law, explained about the consequences of confession, asked a
lot of questions about why he wanted to confess etc. refer paras 8-14 - good model for a good
confession.

S.165 - seizure without warrant

Safeguards:
● reasonable grounds to believe (IPC S26)

○ Lack of time always not a reasonable ground to do a search without warrant.

Subject matter of the search is a stronger reason.

○ State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh

○ Whether there was reason to believe and whether IO acted in a bona fide
manner depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It will have a bearing
on the appreciation of evidence.

● S. Narayanappa v. Comm of IT Dept, Bangalore

● Reason to believe must be a bona fide case and strong grounds of belief.

● record in writing grounds to believe (otherwise illegal search)

○ AIR 1933 OUDH 305
○ Recording the reasons for search is mandatory.

○ State of Raj v. Rahman

○ Not recording the reasons amounts to illegal search.

● specify object of search

 ● As far as possible, IO should be present otherwise deliver an order in writing to the
subordinate
○ (1915) 16 CRLJ 589
○ Delegation of power by IO only if necessary, record reasons for delegating.

● Satya Gopal v. Satrugan Behora

If IO delegates it to A, A cannot further delegate.

● Police can only search a person within their jurisdiction

○ (1915) 16 CRLJ 589
○ If you want to search a place outside your jurisdiction, ask the concerned police
officers to do that search.

● Search and seizure memo/mahazar/panchnama a copy to be sent to mag and accused.

○ Sanchaita Investments v. State of WB
○ Separate search memo should be recorded, not in station house diary or case
diary. Not valid because a copy cant be furnished to accused.

● There must not be prejudice to accused, if there is no other corroborative evidence,

there may be a doubt on prosecution case and evidence may not be relied upon.

● S.165 r/w s.100 can be used to search a place as well as a person. Police must procure
some independent witnesses (S.100).

Kultan Panicker v. State of Kerala

Selection of witnesses by IO must be unprejudiced and unrelated to the case. From that locality,
for instilling faith in the public.

Prem chand v. state of punjab

Dr. Pratap Singh and others v. Director of Enforcement, FERA

Final test of adequacy of grounds by the court. If search was wrong, accused can file a breach
of privacy case against police.

But generally, it is satisfaction of police and not court, and this does not have a bearing on
admissibility, but reliability.

Sharda singh v. State of UP

Compensation from the police in case of illegal search.
Separate search memo, not in station house diary (sanchaita investments)
Court needs to satisfy itself with the reasons only if case filed or allegations raised of breach of
privacy/illegal search, not in normal cases
S.100 (conditions for search) - independent witnesses (should be from same neighbourhood
unless special circumstances), search memo, reasons for search, etc.

S.166 - search in a diff jurisdiction

- Request the officer in the other jurisdiction to search and forward the article
- Can do it himself if it might result in evidence of the commission of an offence being
concealed or destroyed
- Then, will have to send a notice to other PO and Mag - along w list of things seized

S.166A
Letter rogatory:
- If evidence is in juris outside India, then IO should make application to any Criminal
Court, who will then issue a letter to competent court or authority in the foreign
jurisdiction - either to examine some person and record his statements or to collect some
evidence/documents- and to forward whatever was collected.
The other country is not mandated to respond
- The court has to send the letter as per CG instructions - S. 166A(2): Standing Order
445E of MHA
IO or superior officer TO local crim court TO NCB (unit of CBI, India’s Interpol office),
MEA and MHA get involved to see how imp case is and which is the other country. Then
after they approve, our diplomatic agency will give to other country interpol office. There,
they will send it to their local court who may itself record or ask police to do it. Everything
will be done as per their procedure.
- Value of such evidence is as per S. 166A(3): as if collected under this chapter
So if it was a statement recorded by police, would have value of 162 statement, of
magistrate, then it would have value of 164 statement. If their search procedures are vv
different, can even make evidence collected inadmissible. So evidentiary value is based
on Indian law
So this can create lot of problems, especially in context of electronic evidence as 65B of
IEA has some strict requirements and law is that can’t admit without the required
certificate. So if they don’t have similar requirements, it’s pretty pointless.
- Under s. 188, need CG permission to proceed against anyone who can be punished
under Indian law but is in some other country - need sanction for inquiry or trial.
- CBI v Ram Narayan: for investigation in foreign juris, need S. 166A. For inquiry or trial,
need S. 188.

Section 166B: similar to 166A but used when some other country needs evidence from India.
CG can authorise police or magistrate to investigate.
S. 166A and 166B can also be used to allow our police to go elsewhere or for foreign police to
come to India and investigate

See different types of Interpol notices: red, yellow, green, black, purple (red notice is used for
fugitives or persons escaping trial - proclaimed offender)

___________________________________________________________________

S.41 - arrest
S.41A, B, C
S.42
S.43
S.44
S.45
S.46
S.47

S.167 - arrested person to be taken before the magistrate

- 24 hours
- Options of the mag
- 15++ (max 60/90) - JC/PC
- In person/video

S.169,170 - prelim report, release of accused for insufficient evidence

S.171 - bond

S.172 - case diary

- Evidentiary value