Bavdekar, J.

(1) The appellants have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, of an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.

(2) The trial was by a jury and the jury by a majority of 3 to 2 found the appellants guilty of the offence. The principal point, which has been made against the conviction of the appellants, is the admissibility of statements made by all the appellants to the effect that they themselves had hidden the property. In the case of accused No. 5 none of the property was found in his house But he had made a statement stating that he had hidden a trunk in a dunghill of Berads. Mr. Mandgi who appears on behalf of the appellants says that the words forming part of the statements of the accused persons which attributed to them the authorship of the concealment are not admissible in evidence. In support of this contention he refers to our decisions in the case of STATE v. RANGRAO DNYANU, 53 Bom LR 834. We took that view following the ruling of the Privy Council case of KOTTAYA v. EMPEROR, 49 Bom LR 508 (PC). This view has also been taken by another Division Bench of this Court to which I was a party in STATE v. KALEKHAN SALE MAHOMED KHAN, Confirmation Case No. 13 of 1950 (Bom). The contrary view has. however, been taken by another Division Bench in STATE v. PANDURANG DAGDU, Cri. Appeal No. 403 of 1951 (Bom). They have also relied in support of their decision upon the Privy Council case of KOTTAYA v. EMPEROR. In these circumstances, in our view, it is proper to refer to a Full Bench the following question:

"When a statement made by an accused person while in custody of a police officer is tendered into evidence under the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act on the ground that an article which is concealed and the accuseds knowledge of its whereabouts are discovered in consequence of the statement are words included in the statement with regard to the authorship of concealment, for example, "I have concealed", "I have hidden", or "I have kept", admissible in evidence or not?"

JUDGMENT

Chagla, C.J.

(3) Nine accused were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, with a jury, for having committed an offence under Section 395 and in the alternative under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty by 3 to 2 against accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 under Section 411 and they brought in a verdict of not guilty against the other accused. The Additional Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the jury and with regard to the four accused Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 convicted and sentenced them. An appeal was preferred by these four accused and the appeal came for hearing before Mr. Justice Bavdekar and Mr. Justice Chainani. The only evidence against these four accused was a certain statement made by them to the police officer, and the question that arose before the Court of appeal was whether this statement was admissible Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. These two learned Judges have referred the matter to a Full bench as there were conflicting decisions of this Court on this point.

(4) Now, the statements made by these accused were these: With regard to accused No. 5 the statement was that " he would show the place where he had concealed one Bogani and one small Kolag and Jamb in a dung-hill." With regard to accused No. 6 the statement was that " he would produce a trunk which he had concealed in a dung-hill of Berads." With regard to accused No. 7 the statement was that "he would produce a pair of copper ghaggars which he had kept concealed in Ketki garden in the brook in the Shindolli limits." With regard to accused No. 8 the statement was that "he would show two copper Ghaggars and one brass Tapeli which he had concealed in the Ketki garden." The Division Bench that referred this matter to the Full Bench felt ioubt as to whether these statements, to the exten