Section 131

This provision comes from Section 125 of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872, carried forward almost verbatim into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Colonial-era lawmakers recognised that if officials could be cross-examined about the precise timing of when they got tips or information about crimes, it could expose informants, compromise ongoing investigations, or let clever defence lawyers use timing gaps to attack the credibility of the case rather than its substance. The rule protects the integrity of investigations and the safety of sources by shielding this specific detail from compelled disclosure.

Indian courts, interpreting the identical predecessor Section 125 of the Evidence Act, have generally held that this protection is narrow — it only shields the timing of when information was received, not the information itself or its source in other contexts. Courts have clarified that this is not a blanket immunity from testifying; officers can still be questioned about the facts of the case, and the privilege does not extend to concealing entire investigative records, only the specific question of 'when' they first learned of the offence.

• Myth: This provision lets police officers refuse to testify altogether about a crime.
  Fact: It only protects them from revealing the specific timing of when they received information — they must still testify about the facts and events of the case.
• Myth: This rule lets officers hide informants' identities completely.
  Fact: This section only concerns the timing of information, not the source; other legal provisions and doctrines separately address informant protection.