The main legal point established in the judgment is that an admission made by the accused as a witness in another case cannot be used against the accused in a subsequent criminal proceeding, as the accused is entitled to the protection contained in the proviso to S.132 of the Evidence Act.

1. The main question involved in this appeal is whether a conviction can be based on admission made by the accused as a witness in another case. The lower court found 'that such an admission can be used to base a conviction. Accordingly the appellant was convicted for the offence under S.7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs. 1000/-. He is found to have contravened Clause.6 of the Kerala Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel Oil (Maintenance and Regulation of supplies) Order, 1979 (for short'the Order'). The prosecution case is that appellant is the owner of a workshop called "Gopi Motor Workshop". When the Sub-Inspector of the local Police Station searched the said workshop on 9-3-1984, he found 25 litres of diesel oil kept in two canns. He seized the canns under a search list. As the quantity of diesel oil was in excess of the permitted limit, the Sub Inspector arrested the appellant and registered a crime against the appellant. Ext.P3 is the FIR. After obtaining the certificate of chemical analysis of the sample taken from the canns and after completing the investigation, the case was charge sheeted against the appellant.

2. No document evidencing title or ownership of the workshop has been produced. Ext.P8 is the certified copy of the deposition given by the appellant in another criminal case. He was examined in that case as DW1 and the appellant has admitted in that examination that he has a workshop at Kuruppumthara by name "Gopi Motor Workshop". The lower court found that this admission in Ext.P8 is legal evidence which can be used against the maker thereof. Accordingly, the appellant was found guilty of contravention of Clause.6 of the Order.

3. Neither the prosecution nor the defence has a case that the appellant is a dealer in petroleum products. Clause.6 of the Order prohibits a person, other than a dealer, to keep in his ownership, possession or control Petroleum Products in excess of the maximum limit prescribed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies. It is admitted by both sides that the Commissioner of Civil Supplies has prescribed the maximum limit as 20 litres. There is no dispute that the two canns seized contained diesel oil. But to prove the ownership of the workshop prosecution heavily rests on Ext.P8 in which there is an admission that the accused is the owner of the workshop. If the said admission cannot be legally used against the maker thereof, the prosecution has no other evidence to prove the ownership or possession of the workshop.

4. The aforesaid statement in Ext.P8 amounts to admission as defined in S.17 of the Evidence Act. S.21 permits proof of admission as against the person who makes it. Its relevancy as evidence in subsequent judicial proceedings is subject to some restrictions contained in S.33. As no such restriction is applicable in this case it is not necessary to consider the relevancy of it. But S.132 has an important permeation in the filed of consideration of such an admission in subsequent criminal proceedings. That Section is quoted below:

"A witness shall not be excused from answering any question as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in any suit or in any civil or criminal proceeding, upon the ground that the answer to such question, will criminate, or may tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such witness or that it will expose, or tend directly or indirectly to expose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind;

Proviso: Provided that no such answer, which a witness shall be compelled to give shall subject him to any arrest or prosecution, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding, except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer".

5. The Section does not afford protection to a witness who declines to answer a question during examination, merely on the ground that the answer may expose him to any penalty in a subsequent criminal proceeding. A fear of