Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Tek Chand, J., Pal, J., Lodge, J., Din Mohammad, J., Braund, J., Bhide, J., Allsop, J.
Naresh Chandra Das & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 28-08-1941
Admissibility of Evidence - Statement to Police - Opium Act - Sections 9(a), 9(c), 11, 15, 20B - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 164 - Evidence Act - Sections 3, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32(1) - The court discussed the admissibility of a statement made by an accused person to a police officer during an investigation. The court analyzed the interplay between Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prohibits the use of statements made to police officers during an investigation, and Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which allows the use of such statements if they lead to the discovery of a fact. The court held that Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code overrides Section 27 of the Evidence Act, rendering the statement inadmissible. The court also discussed the interpretation of 'special law' under Section 1(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and concluded that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not a 'special law' in relation to Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court further analyzed the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and held that the statement in question did not meet the requirements of the section, as the exact information received from the accused was not established.
Fact of the Case:
Two accused persons were charged under the Opium Act. One accused was charged with possession of opium and the other with knowingly permitting his taxi cab to be used for the transport of opium. The police officer, while on patrol duty, noticed a taxi cab and suspected that it might be carrying opium. He followed the taxi cab and eventually stopped it. The accused persons were arrested and questioned. One accused made a statement to the police, leading to the discovery of opium. The accused persons were convicted by the Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the statement made by the accused to the police was inadmissible in evidence under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court held that Section 162 overrides Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which allows the use of statements leading to discovery. The court also found that the statement did not meet the requirements of Section 27, as the exact information received from the accused was not established. Based on these findings, the court acquitted the accused.
Issues: The main issue before the court was whether the statement made by the accused to the police was admissible in evidence. The court had to determine the interplay between Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code overrides Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The court reasoned that Section 162 is a specific provision that applies to statements made to police officers during an investigation, while Section 27 is a general provision that applies to statements leading to discovery. The court also found that Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not a 'special law' in relation to Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it does not deal with a specific subject matter that is distinct from the general rules of evidence. The court further held that the statement in question did not meet the requirements of Section 27, as the exact information received from the accused was not established.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused persons. The conviction and sentence passed against them were set aside.
JUDGMENT
Pal, J. - These two rules were issued by this Court on the petition of the two accused persons calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Lakhimpur to show cause "why the order of conviction and sentence complained of in the petition should not be set aside or such other or further orders made as to this Court may seem fit and proper." The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 595 of 1941 is Naresh Das who has been convicted u/s 9(c), Opium Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The petitioner in. Criminal Revision No. 646 of 1941 is Sundar Singh who has been convicted u/s 9 (a), Opium Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The prosecution case is that on 5th September last at about 10.30 p. m. the officer-in-charge of Tinsukia Police Station B.B. Dam, happened to be on patrol duty at Bansbari on his way back from Panitola. He saw taxi cab No. A.S.L. 168 proceeding towards Tinsukia from the direction of Dibrugarh. According to previous information he suspected that opium might be carried in that taxi cab. Accordingly he returned to the thana and proceeded in the direction of Makum accompanied by A. S. I., G. C. Das, and two constables. On the way he met one Bangshi Nai and asked him to follow with his oar. The officer-in-charge on arrival near Khemani Rice Mill which is situated near the Trunk Road leading to Makum noticed the taxi cab in question in the mill premises. Meanwhile Bangshi Nai arrived with his car with one Lachmi Narayan. The officer-in-charge told the members of his party that he would search the taxi for opium and left A. S. I., G. C. Das, near the car with a constable and Bangshi on the Trunk Road at some distance to the east of the gate of the Rice Mill and he himself proceeded with Lachmi Narayan and the constable Gyasuddin towards the gate to stop the car as it would come out. In the meantime the taxi started and came out of the gate and proceeded towards Makum (eastward). The officer raised his hand and shouted out to the driver to stop the taxi--but disregarding the signal, it ran ahead. The officer then shouted out to the A. S. I. to stop the car. The A. S. I. and the constable who was with him stood on the middle of the road, shouted out to the driver and raised their hands by way of signalling to stop the car. As the car did not stop they placed their lathis across the road but the driver of the car ignoring these signals and obstructions drove ahead though one of the head lights was smashed in consequence.
2. The officer-in-charge then got into Bangshi's car with A. S. I., G. C. Das, and chased the taxi which was being driven at a break-neck speed and the back light could only be seen from a distance of 2 1/2 miles. The officer arrived at Makum and met one Darjey Lama and his brother Ganga Bahadur on the road and from the information furnished by them traced the taxi in Durgabari Lane which adjoins the Trunk Road. Accused Naresh was found in the car. He was questioned by the police officers as to whether he with another had carried opium in his taxi cab. After being repeatedly questioned he made a statement. Then on the information given by Darjey Lama, a search was made for the second man and accused Sundar Singh was found sitting on the varandah of a sweets shop. Sundar Singh was questioned and confronted with Naresh and in consequence he stated that he had thrown the opium at Sukan Pukhuri and offered to show it. Then he led the police party to Sukhanpukuri where a gunny bag containing the opium was discovered lying under water on the road side. This gunny bag was found to contain 16 cakes of opium weighing 8 srs. 3 chataks. The opium was seized and both Naresh and Sundar Singh were sent up under the Opium Act. The charge against Sundar Singh is that he possessed the opium, and that against Naresh is that he knowingly permitted his taxi cab to be used for the transport of opium by accused Sundar Singh, which is an offence under the Opium Act
gpt-4
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
