A confession obtained under inducement is inadmissible as evidence.

JUDGMENT

Costello, J. - In this case the accused, Bhagabaticharan Patra, who was a despatcher in the Registered Letters Sorting Branch of the Calcutta General Post Office, was convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on charges relating to two postal packets. He was originally charged in respect of three packets. The first charge related to a registered letter No. E-l 35, containing two currency notes of Rs. 100 each, which was for despatch to Bombay. The charge was that he had abstracted from that packet both the notes. That is alleged to have taken place on 2nd December 1931. The second charge related to a registered letter No. 617, from which he is said to have abstracted three currency notes of Rs. 10 each on 7th December 1931, and the last charge related to a registered letter No. 590, from which he is said to have abstracted ten currency notes of Rs. 10 each on 26th December 1931, He was convicted in respect of the first and the third charges and acquitted with regard to the second charge, no evidence having been put before the Court in respect of the package, to which that charge related, that the money said to be the contents thereof was in fact despatched in that letter.

2. The evidence before the learned Presidency Magistrate was to the effect that the two packages, in respect of which the accused was convicted passed through the hands of the accused in his capacity as despatcher. After the accused had made an entry with regard to those packages, they passed through the hands of the Supervisor, Registered Letters Sorting Department of the Post Office, and it was his duty apparently to check the number of the registered packages in the bag, which was sent to him by the accused, before the bag was despatched.

3. The allegation against the accused was that he had abstracted money from the two postal packages in question by slitting the end of the registered covers and then concealing what he had done by affixing a slip of paper, which has been referred to as "acknowledgement due slip." As these packages in question had not been insured, there was no question that any acknowledgment was required. In the ordinary way, registered packages of this character would not bear slips of that nature. It has been suggested by Mr. B.C. Chatterjee for the accused, that something is to be said on behalf of the accused by reason of the fact that the last person, handling the packages before they were despatched, saw nothing wrong with them.

4. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate has really based the conviction upon the fact that the accused is said to have made a confession of guilt. The question of that confession depends upon the evidence of two witnesses. The first of these is Niladrinath Mukherji, who was an Inspector charged with the duty of investigating certain complaints, which were sent to the post office with regard to the packages in question. It appears that the addressees of the letters wrote to the post office complaining that they arrived with the contents as regards the money missing and an investigation was accordingly set on foot. Mr. Mukherji made an investigation and ultimately he called upon Bhagabaticharan Patra for an explanation with regard to certain discrepancies, which were found in one of the lists. It appears, as a matter of fact, that these discrepancies related to the second charge-the charge in respect of which the accused had been acquitted. When the accused was called upon for an explanation, according to the evidence of Mr. Mukherji, he failed to give any explanation and according to that evidence the accused fell at the Inspector's feet. The actual words with regard to this incident are these:

He fell at my feet on 14th March 1932, in the office of the Presidency Postmaster and begged for mercy and to be saved. I asked him to put it in black and white. He then made a statement, which I recorded in the presence of witnesses. The accused signed it as a result of his statement.

5. Now, in