Back
Allahbad High Court
M.H.BEG
Rajendra Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 11/27/1964
CRIMINAL LAW - FORGERY - POSSESSION OF FORGED DOCUMENTS - EVIDENCE - CONFESSION TO SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE - ADMISSIBILITY - INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, S. 25 - CENTRAL EXCISES AND SALT ACT, 1944, S. 21(II).
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was caught traveling in a truck carrying contraband tobacco without a permit. He was found in possession of forged documents, including a transport permit and rubber stamps. The appellant confessed to the Superintendent of Central Excise at the time of his arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was guilty of forgery and possession of forged documents. The court held that the confession made to the Superintendent of Central Excise was inadmissible as evidence under S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the Superintendent was a "police officer" for the purposes of the section. However, the court found that there was overwhelming evidence to justify the findings of the trial court.
Issues: 1. Whether the confession made to the Superintendent of Central Excise was admissible as evidence under S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? 2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the confession made to the Superintendent of Central Excise was inadmissible as evidence under S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as the Superintendent was a "police officer" for the purposes of the section. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram, AIR 1962 SC 276, which held that a Customs Officer acting under the provisions of the Land Customs Act, 1924, or under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, is not a "police officer" meant by S. 25 of the Evidence Act. 2. The court found that there was overwhelming evidence to justify the findings of the trial court. The court noted that the appellant was found in possession of forged documents, including a transport permit and rubber stamps. The court also noted that the appellant had confessed to the Superintendent of Central Excise at the time of his arrest.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence. The court, however, reduced the appellant's sentence from two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 for each of the two offences against the I.P.C. The court also upheld the appellant's conviction under S. 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, with a sentence of six months' R. I, running concurrently.
2. It was alleged that the appellant was caught travelling in a truck in which he was trying to carry some contraband tobacco without the required permit, on 9th of June, 1960, at about 11.30 p.m. Information had been received by Sri C.P. Anand (P.W. 1), Superintendent, Central Excise, Kannauj, who was camping at Gursahaiganj, that a truck loaded with tobacco, on which no duty had been paid, was to be found in Chhibramau Tahsil, in district Farrukhabad, coming from Purabhoj on the Grand Trunk Road. Consequently, the Superintendent of Central Excise arranged two parties, one headed by Sri R.D. Kapil and another by Sri A.M. Warse. The party of Sri R.D. Kapil was posted at Gursahaiganj Railway Crossing and the party of Sri A.M. Warse was directed to proceed to Furabhoj. Information was also sent to Sri S.P. Bakshi, Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise, Chhibramau, to reach toll tax barrier No. 1 of Chhibramau. After making this arrangement, Sri Anand, accompanied by Sri H.C. Siddiqi, another Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise, proceeded on a scooter and waited near a culvert on the Grand Trunk Road. At about 11 p.m., they detected a truck, with its head lights off, coming from the direction of Purabhoj, and they tried to stop it, but the truck took a turn towards Chhibramau and moved off speedily. The truck was followed on by the two Excise Officers, on a scooter until it was overtaken at Chhibramau toll tax barrier where the truck had halted. The driver of the truck, Kripa Shanker (P.W. 9), on being questioned, stated that the truck was carrying tobacco. The driver was asked to produce a permit and he pointed towards the appellant and stated that he had the permit. The appellant, however, failed to show any permit. Therefore, he was asked to get down. In the meantime, the party of Sri A.M. Warse as well as Sri S.P. Bakshi, Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise, and other public servants arrived and surrounded the truck.
The appellant and the truck were searched and a bag, alleged to have been brought by the appellant, was recovered, and three rubber stamps, one purporting to be of the Deputy Superintendent Incharge, Multiple Range, Central Excise, Farrukhabad, and two others of private individuals, a numbering machine, ink pad, and other articles, including some money, were found in the bag. Among the materials contained in the bag were blank forms of transport permits and one transport permit Form No. 147530 duly filled up purporting to bear the seal of the Deputy Superintendent Incharge, Multiple Range, Central Excise, Farrukhabad, and also the purported signature of this officer. A recovery memo of what was recovered was prepared and two statements, one of the appellant, Rajendra Kumar (Ex. Ka-1) and another of the driver, Kirpa Shanker (P.W. 9) (Ex. Ka-30), were taken. These statements contained a confession of the appellant and the allegations made by Kirpa Shanker (P.W. 9). On 10th of June, 1960, Sri Anand P.W. 1 sent a written report to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, for necessary action and a case was duly registered at police station. Chhibramau, on 13th of June, 1960, at 8 a.m.
This case was investigated by three Sub-Inspectors of Police. Sri K.N. Chaturvedi (P.W. 14), Sri C.M. Dixit (P.W. 13), and Sri Chaggan Singh (P.W. 12). Sri A.P. Mathur (P.W. 10), Deputy Inspector, Central Excise, appeared in Court and gave evidence that no such permit as the one said to have been shown by the appellant to the driver of the truck was ever issued by him. Sri B. Kumar (P.W. 11) and Sri Panna Lal (P.W. 7) also proved that the documents said to have been relied upon by the ap
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
