ORDER :- This is a case in which the maternal uncle alleged as a complainant that his nephew had stolen from him two ear-rings and cash of Rs. 4810-0-9. The prosecution mainly relied upon a confessional statement recorded under S. 27, Evidence Act which is stated to have been made by the nephew.

The appellate Court found that this confessional statement could not be accepted as it exceeded the limits of admissibility laid down in the Privy Council decision of - Kotayya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 (A) and the Madras cases of - Vodde Nagappa In re, AIR 1948 Mad 104 (2) (B) - Public Prosecutor v. Voor Gounden, AIR 1948 Mad 242 (C); - In re Vellingiri, AIR 1950 Mad 613 (D) - In re Sheikh Khadir Sahib, AIR 1950 Mad 108 (E) and that there were Several circumstances in this case like the uncle not coming forward with the complaint at the earliest possible time and the improbability of a nephew stealing the property of his uncle etc. creating considerable doubt and reversed the trial Magistrates conviction giving the accused the benefit of doubt.

A revision petition was filed in the High Court. Here my learned brother Somasundaram, J. refused to interfere with the acquittal and conf