Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Horwill, J.
In Re: Sheik Mahaboob
Versus
Decided On : 30.07.1941
Section 562 - Theft in a Building - The court held that Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code can only be applied to first offenders, and therefore, accused 4, who had already spent time in a Borstal School, could not be treated under this section. The court also emphasized that the confession made by the accused persons, which led to the discovery of the stolen article, was not admissible as there was no evidence to conclude that accused 4 made the crucial statement or led to the discovery.
Fact of the Case:
The joint Magistrate of Ongole tried four accused for the offence of 'theft in a building.' After admonishing them, he released them under Section 562, Criminal P.C. The Sessions Judge referred the case to the Court for orders as accused 4, who had already spent time in a Borstal School, could not be treated under Section 562. The only evidence against the accused persons was a confession which led to the discovery of the stolen article.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that accused 4 could not be treated under Section 562 and should be given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. The conviction was set aside.
Issues: The issues involved the application of Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the admissibility of the confession made by the accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 562, which can only be applied to first offenders, and the lack of evidence to conclude that accused 4 made the crucial statement or led to the discovery of the stolen articles.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and acquitted accused 4.
Horwill, J.
1. The joint Magistrate of Ongole tried four accused for the offence of "theft in a building." They were all youths; and after admonishing them he released them under Section 562, Criminal P.C. Section 562 can be applied only to first offenders; and so accused 4, who had already spent two periods in a Borstal School, could not be treated under this section. The Sessions Judge has therefore referred the case to this Court for orders. The only evidence against the accused persons was a confession which is said to have been made by them and which led to the discovery of the stolen article. All the four accused could not, of course, have been questioned together, nor is it to be believed that they simultaneously made a confession of their guilt. If the police officer and the other panchayatdars had discovered the whereabouts of the stolen article from the statement of one accused, then the statements of the other accused would not be admissible because they did not lead to any discovery. There is no evidence on record which leads one to conclude that it was accused 4 who made the crucial statement, or that it was accused 4 who led the panchayatdars to the place where the stolen articles were found. I think therefore that he should be given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted. The conviction is therefore set aside.
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
