Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XVI: Commencement of Proceedings Before Magistrates
Section 207: Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
In a case started on a police report, the Magistrate must promptly give the accused, free of cost, copies of the police report, the First Information Report, the police statements of prosecution witnesses, any confessions and statements recorded under section 164, and other documents sent with the report.
- The Magistrate can decide whether parts the police asked to exclude should still be given.
- For bulky documents, the accused can be allowed to inspect them in court instead.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:—
(i) the police report;
(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;
(iii) the statements recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section (6) of section 173;
(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;
(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section (5) of section 173:
Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused:
Provided further that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any document referred to in clause (v) is voluminous, he shall, instead of furnishing the accused with a copy thereof, direct that he will only be allowed to inspect it either personally or through pleader in Court.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 207
-
Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi
Appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC. The High Court further affirmed the order on sentence dated 20.02.2021, whereby the accused-appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for…
-
Dashwanth v. State of Tamil Nadu
Trial Court found appellant guilty for the charges framed u/ss.302, 201, 363, 366 and 354-B of the IPC and s.8 r/w. s.7 and s.6 r/w. s.5(m) of the POCSO Act. An appeal against the said conviction was dismissed by the…
-
The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali
When victim herself has stepped into witness box, whether her examination can be done in piecemeal.
-
Akhtar Ali @ Ali Akhtar @ Shamim @ Raja Ustad v. State of Uttarakhand
Whether the conviction of the appellants, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, deserves to be upheld or whether they are entitled to acquittal.
-
Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether Trial Court ought to have given proper time and opportunity to the legal aid defence counsel to prepare the matter and should have deferred the cross-examination of PW-1 by a reasonable time so as to ensure…
-
Mohammed Asarudeen v. Union of India & Ors.
Whether the Special Court while dealing with an application under sub-section 2 of s.44 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 made in respect of a large number of witnesses, recorded the satifaction which is…
-
Jamin & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
(i) Whether the High Court was right in exercising its revisional jurisdiction for the purpose of setting aside the order of the Trial Court rejecting the second application preferred by the respondent no.2 u/s.319 of…
-
Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for the kidnapping, rape/sexual assault and murder of a minor is sustainable.
- Saif Ateeque Nachan v. National Investigation Agency
-
Bharti Arora v. The State of Haryana
Whether the Special Judge could have conducted the proceedings against the present appellant for the offence punishable u/s.58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; whether the Special Judge was…
- Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement
- Jawed Imam Siddiqui v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Central Bureau of Investigtation v. Mahesh Agarwalla & Anr. & Ors
- Sehegal Hossain v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr
- Naveen Panchal v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Christian James Michel v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Sukanya Mondal v. Directorate of Enforcement
-
Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement
Appellant was incarcerated for around 17 months, trial yet to commence. Bail denied. Whether the trial court and the High Court correctly considered the observations made by this Court with regard to right to speedy…
- Arun Ramchandran Pillai v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Central Bureau of Investigtation v. R. Vasudevan & Ors
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. R Vasudevan & Ors
- Manish Sisodia v. Central Bueraeu of Investigation
- Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement
-
Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Need for a comprehensive sentencing policy. Trial against the accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was conducted by the judicial officer in utmost haste and the accused was denied due…
- State NCT of Delhi v. Rahul @Gagan Deep Singh
- Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
-
Shoma Kanti Sen v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The appellant was detained on 06.06.2018. The appellant assails the order of a Division Bench of the High Court passed on 17.01.2023, disposing her application for bail with liberty to approach the Trial Court for…
- Shiv Raj Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Sunil Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Rajeev Jhawar v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. State
- Arun Kumar Goenka v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Manish @ Ganja v. State (Gnct of Delhi
- Dr Balwinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Ut Chandigarh
- Kumar Gaurav & Anr v. State N.C.T. of Delhi
- State v. Rahul
- Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar
- State Through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Hemendhra Reddy & Another. Etc.
- Mohammad Saber v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Vinod Kumar v. State (Gnct of Delhi)
- Saurav Das v. Union of India & Ors.
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Ram Niwas
- Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab
- P. Ponnusamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu
- Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India & Ors
- Varsha Garg v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
- Reliance Industries Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India & Ors.
- Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu & Anr.
- Major Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Manoj & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- S.P. Velumani v. Arappor Iyakkam and Ors.
- Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
- Waheed-Ur-Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
- Rajesh Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Anr. Etc.
- Jitul Jentilal Kotecha v. State of Gujarat and Ors. Etc
- Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari & Ors.
- Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
- Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr. Etc.
- Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors.
- G H P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala and Anr.
- Rajesh & Ors. v. State of Haryana
- National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
- Khushwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
- S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak & Others
- Brijendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
- Hussain and Anr. v. Union of Lndia
- Tarun Tyagi v. Central Bureau of Investigation
- Ramesh and Others v. State of Haryana
- Balveer Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
- State of Rajasthan v. Ramesh
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Rathin Dandapat and Others
- State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Anil Kumar Sharma and Another ,
- Sanjeev v. State of Haryana
- Selvaraj @ Chinnapaiyan v. State Represented by Inspector of Police
- R. N. Agarwal v. R. C. Bansal & Ors.
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
- Manjeet Singh Khera v. State of Maharashtra
- R. Shaji v. State of Kerala.
- Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics
- Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan
- V.K. Sasikala v. State Rep. by Superintendent of Police
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Amitbhai Anil Chandra Shah and Another
- Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. The State (Govt. of Nct) Delhi
- Jahid Shaikh & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary and Ors.
- Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- Jaswant & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
- Krishna Ghosh v. State of West Bengal
- Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab
- Bharat Parikh v. C.B.I. & Anr.
- Mahabir v. The State of Delhi
- Dayal Singh v. State of Maharashtra
- U.T. of Dadra & Haveli and Anr. v. Patel Sinh Mohansinh Chauhan
- Raj Kjshore Prasad v. State of Bihar