Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XVI: Commencement of Proceedings Before Magistrates
Section 208: Supply of copies of statements and documents to accused in other cases triable by Court of Session
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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 complaint case triable only by a Court of Session, the Magistrate must promptly give the accused, free of cost, copies of statements recorded under sections 200 and 202, any statements and confessions under sections 161 and 164, and documents the prosecution relies on. Bulky documents can be inspected 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
Where, in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, it appears to the Magistrate issuing process under section 204 that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the Magistrate shall 1. Ins. by Act 25 of 2005, s. 20 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006). 2. Subs. by s. 20, ibid., for —one hundred rupees‖ (w.e.f. 23-6-2006). 3. Now the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988). 4. Ins. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 18 (w.e.f. 18-12-1978).
without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:—
(i) the statements recorded under section 200 or section 202, of all persons examined by the Magistrate;
(ii) the statements and confessions, if any, recorded under section 161 or section 164;
(iii) any documents produced before the Magistrate on which the prosecution proposes to rely:
Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that any such document 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 208
-
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…
-
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…
- 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…
- Rajeev Jhawar v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Bhawna Grover v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors
- Yashodhan Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Ram Niwas
- Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. The State of Punjab
- P. Ponnusamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu
- Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu & Anr.
- Ms. P Xxx v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr
- Manoj & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Waheed-Ur-Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
- Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
- Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr. Etc.
- G H P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala and Anr.
- Rajesh & Ors. v. State of Haryana
- S. Mohammed Ispahani v. Yogendra Chandak & Others
- Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Classic Credit Ltd.
- Brijendra Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan
- Hussain and Anr. v. Union of Lndia
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.
- Jahid Shaikh & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary and Ors.
- Rosy and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
- Raj Kjshore Prasad v. State of Bihar