SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1920 Supreme(Cal) 381

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J, Asutosh Mookerjee, J.
Mafizuddin Khan - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 30-11-1920

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure - Section 110 - Sections 30, Indian Evidence Act

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code proceeding against the petitioner Mafiz. The confession of a co-accused Mukti, made in a separate dacoity case, was admitted in evidence against Mafiz in the Section 110 proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the confession of Mukti in the dacoity case was not admissible against Mafiz in the Section 110 proceedings, as per the decision in Amirulla Pramanik v. Emperor.

Issues: Whether the confession of Mukti, a co-accused in a separate dacoity case, was admissible against Mafiz in the Section 110 proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act does not make the confession of a co-accused admissible in proceedings other than the one in which the confession was made.

Final Decision: The court made the Rule absolute, remitted the case to the lower appellate court for further investigation, and directed the court to exclude the inadmissible confession from its consideration.

JUDGMENT

1. This Rue has been granted on the second ground in the petition which was as follows: " For that the trial has been vitiated by the fast that the Trial Court admitted evidence of case diaries, confessions, and statements of persons who have not been examined, etc., which are all inadmissible in evidence." The learned Vakil who appeared in support of the Rule has told us that he does not rely upon the alleged improper admission of evidence of case-diaries or the statement of persons who have not been examined and, we have, therefore, to deal with the admission of confession only.

2. Now, it appears that the confession of a man sailed Mukti was pat in evidence. Mukti was one of the persons involved in the Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, case. But the confession which is alleged to have been made was made when he (Makti) and Mafiz, the present petitioner, were co accused in another ease, which, we are informed, was a dacoity case. In my judgment, that confession was not admissible in the Section 110 procedings. It would have been, no doubt, admissible in the dacoity case not only against Mukti but also against Mafiz, u/s 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. Bat Section 30 does not make that confession of Makti in the dacoity case admissible in these Section 110 proceedings against Mafiz. That has already been decided by this Court in Amirulla Pramanik v. Emperor 49 Ind. Cas. 649 : 22 C.W.N. 408 : 20 Cr.L.J. 201.

3. The result is, that this Rule must be made absolute, and the case must be remitted to the Additional district Magistrate of the lower Appellate Court for further investigation, upon the record as it stands. We wish to make it clear that the witnesses should not be re-called and examined and the lower Appellate Court will come to its decision upon perusal of the record as it stands exclusive, of course, of the confession, which we Lave held to be inadmissible.

4. The accused will be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the lower Appellate Court. We ask the lower Appellate Court to ex-pedite the re-hearing of the matter as much as possible.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top