Who must sign and seal the record that an investigating official makes after an interrogation, search, seizure or deposit in a penalty-offence investigation?
General information · Not legal advice
Material to check
In practice material of this kind, we read the record of the interrogation itself for the official's account of how the act was carried out, the signature and seal lines for the official and for the participant or the person interrogated, and any entry giving a reason where a signature is missing.
These are types of material to look for, not evidence already verified by PRO SE.
Where readings differ
One reading takes the sequence as a whole: where an official investigating a penalty offence has conducted an interrogation, search, seizure or deposit, the official must record the circumstances of it, have the participant or the person interrogated confirm that record, and then sign and seal it together with them.
Another reading notes the fallback the provision allows: where the participant or the person interrogated does not sign and seal, or cannot do so, only the reason must be recorded by the investigating official, and the provision does not say what it must say, or whether a copy of the record reaches that person.
Your judgment
Where a signature is missing, what in the file shows whether it was refused or impossible, and what followed?
PRO SE does not make this decision or keep a case record on this public site.When to reconsider
We look at this again if the provision is amended to require a copy of the record to be given to the person interrogated, or if a court decision explains what the recorded circumstances must contain or who records the reason for a missing signature.