Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Section Summary
| Section | Rule | Key Concept | Case Law |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | Amendment of Section 20 of the CrPC, 1973: The State Government may delegate certain powers relating to Executive Magistrates to the District Magistrate. | This provision allows the State Government to transfer specified administrative powers to the District Magistrate, subject to its directions and control. | — |
| 3 | Amendment of Section 24: Explains the meaning of a regular cadre of prosecuting officers and prosecuting officers. | This provision clarifies the meaning of these terms for rules concerning the appointment of Public Prosecutors. | — |
| 4 | Insertion of Section 25A: Allows the State Government to establish a Directorate of Prosecution. It provides for a Director and Deputy Directors of Prosecution and sets out their roles and reporting structure. | The Directorate helps organise and supervise the work of government prosecutors. The section also lays down eligibility and administrative requirements for its senior officers. | — |
| 6 | Amendment of Section 46: As a general rule, a woman must not be arrested after sunset and before sunrise. In exceptional circumstances, a woman police officer must submit a written report and obtain prior permission from the Judicial Magistrate First Class. | This provision provides a special safeguard for women during arrest at night. Night-time arrest is permitted only in exceptional circumstances and after following the required procedure. | Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra (1983) |
| 7 | Insertion of Section 50A: The person making an arrest must promptly inform a friend, relative or another person nominated by the arrested person about the arrest and the place of custody. The police must record this information, and the Magistrate must check compliance. | This provision helps protect arrested persons by ensuring that someone they choose is informed of their arrest. It also creates a record that can be checked by the Magistrate. | D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) |
| 8 | Amendment of Section 53: Expands the meaning of medical examination to include scientific methods such as DNA profiling and the examination of specified body samples. | Medical examination can help collect scientific evidence during an investigation. The examination must be carried out by a registered medical practitioner as required by law. | Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) |
| 9 | Insertion of Section 53A: Allows the medical examination of a person arrested for rape or attempted rape when there are reasonable grounds to believe it may provide evidence. The doctor must prepare a detailed report and send it to the investigating officer. | This provision allows investigators to collect relevant medical and scientific evidence from an accused person. The doctor's report must record important details, including injuries, samples collected and reasons for conclusions. | — |
| 10 | Amendment of Section 54: Requires a copy of the medical examination report to be given to the arrested person or the person nominated by them. | This provision helps the arrested person obtain a record of their medical examination. It supports transparency in the process. | D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) |
| 11 | Insertion of Section 54A: Allows the court to direct an arrested person to take part in an identification process when identification is necessary for an investigation. | This provision gives the court power to order an identification process. Such identification may help investigators determine whether a witness can identify the person connected with an alleged offence. | Budhsen v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1970) |
| 12 | Amendment of Section 82: Allows a court, after the required inquiry, to declare a person a proclaimed offender if the person fails to appear in response to a proclamation concerning specified serious offences. | A person who ignores a court proclamation may face further legal consequences. The declaration can be made only when the legal conditions are met. | — |
| 17 | Insertion of Section 164A: Requires the medical examination of a woman who alleges rape or attempted rape to be conducted with her consent by a registered medical practitioner. The woman must be sent for examination within 24 hours of the information being received. | This provision sets rules for medical examinations in rape investigations. Consent is essential, and the doctor must prepare a report recording the examination and its findings. | Lillu @ Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2013) |
| 18 | Amendment of Section 176: Requires a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate to conduct an inquiry where a person dies or disappears, or rape is alleged, while in police custody or other custody authorised by a court or Magistrate. | This provision adds independent judicial scrutiny in serious cases involving custody. It helps ensure that such incidents are examined beyond the police investigation alone. | Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) |
| 19 | Amendment of Section 202: Requires a Magistrate to postpone issuing process and conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation when the accused lives outside the Magistrate's area of jurisdiction. | This provision helps prevent criminal proceedings from being started against a person living elsewhere without the required preliminary check. It supports a fair process before the accused is called to court. | National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz (2013) |
| 27 | Insertion of Section 311A: Allows a Judicial Magistrate First Class to order a person, including an accused person, to provide specimen signatures or handwriting for an investigation or proceeding. The person must have been arrested in connection with that matter. | Specimen signatures and handwriting can be compared with disputed documents. The provision allows the Magistrate to order their collection when the legal conditions are satisfied. | State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) |
| 33 | Amendment of Section 389: Before releasing a convicted person on bail when the offence is punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of at least ten years, the appellate court must give the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to oppose the release in writing. | This provision adds a safeguard before certain convicted persons are released while an appeal is pending. It also allows the Public Prosecutor to seek cancellation of bail granted to such a person. | — |
| 35 | Amendment of Section 436: Requires the court or officer to release an indigent person accused of a bailable offence on a personal bond, without insisting on sureties, where the legal conditions apply. If the person cannot arrange bail within one week of arrest, this may be treated as sufficient reason to presume that the person is indigent. | A person should not remain in custody for a bailable offence merely because they cannot afford a surety. A personal bond is a promise to appear in court without requiring another person to guarantee payment. | Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1978) |
| 36 | Insertion of Section 436A: Provides for the release of an undertrial prisoner who has spent up to one-half of the maximum prison term for the offence in detention, subject to the conditions and exceptions in the section. A person cannot be detained during the investigation, inquiry or trial for longer than the maximum prison term for that offence. | An undertrial prisoner is a person whose case has not yet reached a final decision. This provision seeks to prevent people from spending an excessive period in custody before their trial is completed. | Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2014) |
| 37 | Amendment of Section 437: Revises certain rules on bail for non-bailable offences. It requires the Public Prosecutor to be given an opportunity to be heard before bail is granted in specified serious cases and sets out conditions that may apply to bail. | This provision strengthens the procedure for deciding bail in serious criminal cases. Conditions may require the accused to attend court, avoid similar offences and not threaten witnesses or interfere with evidence. | Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1978) |
| 38 | Amendment of Section 438: Revises the procedure for anticipatory bail. A person who reasonably fears arrest for a non-bailable offence may apply to the High Court or Court of Session. The court considers factors such as the seriousness of the accusation, past convictions and the risk of the person avoiding justice. | Anticipatory bail is an order protecting a person from being taken into custody in the event of arrest, subject to the court's directions. The provision sets out factors that courts must consider when deciding whether to grant it. | Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) |
| 39 | Insertion of Section 441A: Requires every person standing as surety for an accused person to declare before the court how many people they have stood surety for, including the current accused, and provide the relevant details. | A surety promises to help ensure that the accused follows the conditions of bail. This provision helps the court check the surety's existing responsibilities. | — |
| 42 | Amendment of the First Schedule: Changes the classification and punishment details for certain offences, including offences relating to carrying arms in a procession and failure to appear after a court proclamation. | The First Schedule helps identify whether an offence is cognizable or non-cognizable, bailable or non-bailable, and which court can try it. These changes affect how the listed offences are handled under criminal procedure. | — |
| 44 | Amendment of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Inserts Sections 153AA, 174A and 229A. These deal with carrying arms in certain processions or armed gatherings, failure to appear after a proclamation, and failure to appear in court after release on bail or bond. | These provisions create or clarify offences linked to public safety and failure to obey court procedures. They provide punishments for the conduct described in each section. | — |