 25 because he is deemed to be a police officer for the purpose of section 25 as well. So therefore that confession is not admissible in evidence. Now there are certain other officers belonging to other departments who exercise the powers of police officers. Some may exercise some of the powers and some may exercise all the powers of a police officer including the power to file a final report under section 1732 before a competent magistrate or court. Now there is a controversy now. The Honorable Supreme Court at least on two occasions in two different constitutional judgments has held that the customs officers, the central justice officers and like that there are certain other officers or not at all police officers though they are exercising some or many of the powers of police officers. Therefore according to the Honorable Supreme Court if any confession is made to any one of these officers then say the bar contained in section 25 is not applicable because they are not either police officers or deemed to be police officers. Now take the case of Narca the officers who are investigating the cases under the Narcotics Act. They are like the Narcotics NCB and other officers. By appointment they are not police officers but they have been given lot of powers of police officers including the power to arrest, power to search, power to enter, power to seize and the power to file a private complaint. All these powers have been given. Now in some of the judgments the Honorable Supreme Court took the view referring to and falling in line with the early judgments relating to customs act. The Honorable Supreme Court said that they are not police officers for the purpose of section 25 and therefore any statement made to them though it is a confession is not hit by section 25 of the evidence. That is how under the Narcotics Act many confessions are nowadays admitted which were actually made to these officers who are exercising their powers under the Narcotics Act. Now the question is the rise before the Honorable Supreme Court. A division bench has raised a doubt as to whether these officers are police officers for the purpose of section 25 of the evidence act or not. In Tofons in case the matter has been reported larger bench and the same is now pending consideration the matter is being argued. So we are waiting for a judgment. Therefore friends whenever any confession made to an officer is sought to be placed before the court in order to find whether he is a police officer for the purpose of section 25 apply these judgments and what are the judgments I will tell you at the end which are I will circulate in the box so you can know it. I do not want to waste my time on this. So these are all confessions made to police, confessions made to deem the police and confessions made to some of the officers who exercise only powers or most of the powers are the police officers. There are also confessions which are made to neither to a police officer nor to a magistrate. These confessions as you all know very well are all known as extra judicial confession. A confession made to a police officer itself is an extra judicial confession no doubt about that but there is a subclassification. Confessions made to police officers or deemed to police officers or officers who exercise the powers of the police officer we can keep that in one category. The other confessions are confessions made to neither of these officers nor to a judicial magistrate. They are also falling within the category of extra judicial confessions. Now what is the what is the evidentiary value of extra judicial confession you all know very well. Extra judicial confession as dealt with in section 24 if it is found to be free from inducement threat or promise is relevant and the same is substantive evidence which by itself is sufficient to convict an accused but if there are doubts in respect of any such confession as to whether there would have been some kind of threat promise or etc or any other doubt in respect of the contents of the confession then as a rule of prudence the court has to look for a corroboration from independent sources on general on material particulars. This is then relating to extra judicial confession. Now let us come to section 26 section 26 peaks of a confession made while in custody but in the presence of immediate presence of a magistrate. So these confessions which are made to judicial magistrates are called as judicial confessions. Now judicial confessions can be the sole foundation for conviction because there is guarantee that the confession was truly recorded and given sufficient warning to the accused. Now how a judicial confession used to be recorded is dealt with in section 164 of the court. Now I want to highlight two aspects in section 164 are to how a judicial confession used to be recorded so as to make it beyond any doubt. Now section 164 2 states that the magistrate shall before recording any such confession explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession. Number 1 this is a communication made by the magistrate to the accused. What is the communication? He has to inform him. He has to make him to understand that he is not bound to make a confession. These are first thing that he has to do not stopping with that. He has to get another thing also. What is that? He should inform him that if he makes a confession it may be used as evidence against him. So this is what we in common parlance call as warning by the magistrate. This is like one way traffic. It is the duty of the magistrate to convey these two things. Look you are not bound to make a confession and if any such confession is made it is likely to be used against you. It may be used against you. This warning the magistrate has to give. Why the lawmakers made such kind of provision here in section 164? It is because of article 21 and article 23 23 of the constitution of India. Article 23 says that a person cannot be compelled to be a witness that is testimonial compulsion. So if you want this provision or this right which emanates from the constitution as a fundamental right may not be known to the accused. Therefore it is said in this provision that it is a duty of the magistrate to convey to him to inform him about his constitutional right under article 23 and also the right emanating from article 21 of the constitution of India. So this warning is in tune with article 23 as well as article 21 which speaks of FR procedure. So this warning is to be given. After giving this warning this is only convincingly telling him persuading him making him to understand. So after making him to so understand these warnings what he has to do is that he has to give 24 hours time for him to rethink to think it over to relax himself then he has to come. If you look at section 164 you may not find a provision that after giving the warning the accused is to be sent back to the prison and he has to be given 24 hours time to think it over. It is not found in section 164 but this is a development made by judicial pronouncements and the law declares with the Honorable Supreme Court in several judgments. Therefore the law is that after making the first warning he has to be given 24 hours time to think it over and to come in a relaxed mood on the next day with a decision whether to confess or not. This is the first part. Now the accused is produced again on the second day. On that day also he has to again convey to him these two warnings. Number one you are not going to make a statement. Number two if you make a statement it may be used against you. This warning he has to again make. It is not sufficient to say that I made this warning already and therefore there is no need to make the warning once again. This warning should also be made and there has to be a contemporary record prepared by the magistrate to show that this mandatory provision was complied with by him. This is very very essential. Now second day he is produced. This warning has been given. What do you have to do? Then there is a duty cast upon the magistrate to make an assessment. It is an impartial assessment that he is required to make. What is that assessment? It is indicated in subsection 2 itself. This says the magistrate shall not record any confession. The magistrate shall not record. There is a mandate. There is a direction to the magistrate. Don't record unless upon questioning the person making it he has reason to believe that it is made that it is being made voluntary. Therefore here there is a mandate to the magistrate that he shall not record unless he is convinced or unless he believes the language the term used is belief. Unless he has got reason to believe that the confession is going to be made voluntarily. Here there is an assessment made by the magistrate and this should also be recorded by him in the confession itself. Now after that they actually ask to confess. He confesses. Then after completing the confession he has to read it over to him and he has to accept. He has to sign. That is one part. Now there is another direction to the magistrate which is also mandatory. That he has to record a memorandum at the foot of such a record. What is that? That is also clearly stated here in subsection 4 which says I have explained to so and so that he is not bound to make a confession. You see he has already made that warning that he is recording here as a footnote and that if he does so any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him. So this is the first part recording the warning that he has given. Now second part and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. So he has to record his assessment of the mental condition of the accused as to whether he was voluntarily making the confession. As dealt with in subsection 2 if he has got any doubt about the voluntariness then he shall not record. So he can record only after having satisfied his conscience that the confession is made voluntarily. So the second part that he has to record then after that what he has record is it was taken in my presence and hearing and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. So if suppose this footnote is found missing in a particular case what is the legal effect? I will tell you only one case for your consideration that is Chandran Varsha state reported in 1978 Supreme Court. In that case the London magistrate instead of recording that he believed that this confession was voluntarily made he said that I hope that this confession was made voluntarily. This was raised as an issue before the Honourable Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court the argument was because the magistrate had no belief or no satisfaction that the confession was made voluntarily he has used a different language. The Honourable Supreme Court went into the literal meaning of these two words that he hoped and believed and finally held that because the magistrate had some doubt about the voluntariness he had used a different language therefore this confession is not voluntarily and as a consequence it is not admissible under section 24 of the evidence act. The confession was rejected by the Honourable Supreme Court on this all right. So I had occasion to deal with another case where the London magistrate after recording the confession simply recorded in the footnote like this it was taken in my presence hearing read over he admitted and signed. He has not recorded the first part namely the warning that he gave and his satisfaction about the voluntariness of the confession. Whether this is only a defect which is curable or which goes to the root of the case used to be decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case but one thing is very clear this part can be in fact a cure if you go to section 463 of the quota criminal procedure it provides for curing such a defect in the confession. 463 may read section 463 if any court before which a confession or other statement of an accused person recorded or purporting to be recorded under section 164 or section 2 to 81 is rendered or has been received in evidence in evidence finds that any of the provisions of either of such sections have not been complied with by the magistrate recording the statement it may not be standing anything contained in section 9 to 1 of the evidence act take evidence in regard to such non-compliance. So the magistrate of the trial court is empowered to call the magistrate to the court to take evidence to call for explanation from him by way of evidence as to why this mandatory requirement was not complied with the trial court has got immense power to do that very good let me read further and may after having called the magistrate to the court as a witness after having offered an opportunity to him to explain as to why he did not comply with these mandatory provisions the magistrate has to the trial court has to now make an assessment what is that if satisfied that such a non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defense on the merits and that he duly made the statement recorded admits that statement earlier I said if the statement the footnote is not found it creates a doubt as to whether it is voluntary or not if there is such a doubt then it is not admissible under section 24 of the evidence act now this section says that it can be admitted despite that such a non-compliance the court can admit the same in evidence when if the court is satisfied that such a non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defense so there is no more explanation here as to how to test whether this has injured the defense of the accused or not now my my understanding of desperation would be that unless there are contemporaries records in the confession itself for example I say before further explaining the accused is produced the magistrate is after warning the magistrate has to assess what is the assessment that the confession is is going to be made voluntarily how such assessment can be made what are the inputs with the magistrate there is nothing before him so therefore he has to gather the inputs that is also indicated in section 164 itself 164 says that upon questioning the accused therefore it is for the magistrate to put any question to him in order to ascertain in order to gather materials in order to find the reasons as to whether the confession is going to be made voluntarily or not in a given case suppose the magistrate has recorded the questions and the answers elicited but he has failed to record the footnote alone and he explains to the court that he does out of ignorance I failed to record the footnote but I have recorded in the confession as to what are all the questions put by me and what are all the answers given by him I have recorded I was satisfied then this explanation of the magistrate is acceptable in my view it is acceptable and such an even this non-complaint will not render the confession in that possible this is but in the case which I told you that is Chandran's case the magistrate was not called by the prosecution neither by the court to explain as to why he used a different language instead of using belief I believe why did he use I hope there was no explanation of what he was not summoned so therefore the hand of supreme court found no other way no option except to reject the confession in the case which I dealt with also there was no such explanation obtained from the magistrate therefore the confession had to be rejected as inadmissible it is one thing to say that the confession is admissible and because of certain doubts no reliance can be made on that that is regarding private value now I am talking on the issue of very admissibility itself unless the confession is free from these three evils namely coercion threat or promise it is not admissible at all I am on the question of very admissibility not on the private value please mind that therefore this is the way in which a judicial confession is recorded now the honourable supreme court has been taking consistent view that since in the judicial confession there are certain guarantees what is the first guarantee the accused has been given sufficient warning that is in compliance with article 23 of the constitution he has been warned despite the warning he gives confession therefore it is it it is presumed that it is voluntary and upon from that the magistrate himself upon questioning the accused and from the answers elicited from him has assessed his mental condition and he has recorded that he gave the confession voluntarily therefore there is a guarantee to submit and that the confession was made voluntarily after all these safeguards since such a confession is recorded by a judicial authority who has got no interest in the case then the honourable supreme court says that this confession can be the sole foundation for convicting the accused there need not be any other evidence at all there is one thing to say that there are evidences despite this if there are some doubts regarding the confession then as a rule of prudence the court may look for some corroboration from other material other evidences in material particulars that is on the question of appreciation of evidence therefore my friends in these three category of confessions so far as confession made to a police officer an officer who is deemed to be a police officer there is a complete bar under section 25 therefore it is not admissible so far as the officers who are exercising some of the powers of police officers and other third parties who are not officers the confession which is extra judicial can be admitted provided the it is made clear to the court that there was no threat promise or coercion this is the second category of confession the third category of confession is the confession made to a judicial magistrate that is a judicial confession then all the three what is to be ensured by the court is that there was no threat there was no coercion or there was no this in promise in Sakyan even to only the confession is admissible in evidence I do not want to take much of your time on this further now let me pass on to directly to section 27 my next come section 27 section 27 is a previso to section 25 of the evidence act section 25 says that confession made to a police officer at any point of time is not admissible in evidence section 27 is a previso now before going to section 27 I want to highlight one more aspect for your consideration if you look at section 27 I am sorry 25 it says in two lines no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person acquitted of any offense it says that a confession made to a police officer cannot be used against him shall be no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person acquitted of any offense it cannot be used against him it cannot be admitted as evidence against him therefore what is the reverse it can be used in his favor so if a confession has been made by an accused it is nothing but a previous statement but it can be used in his favor so that is the inference we could draw from section 25 from the language of section 25 now let us take a case where during the course of investigation the accused is arrested and he makes a confession in that confession he says that he exercises right of private defense or he says about provocation he says some defenses are available in that the question is can he use the confession in his favor yes certainly if you look at section 25 the confession made cannot be used against him but it can be made use of in his favor if it if it will reduce the offense from a major offense to minor offense or if it will help the court to reduce the sentence because his family circumstances everything are stated therein it can certainly be used in his favor as there is no prohibition under section 25 to use in his favor so it may be the first impression but hurdle for the accused comes by way of section 162 if you look at section 162 it says that no statement made during the course of investigation shall be used for any purpose there is a general bar whether such a statement is made by the accused or a witness it is immaterial if any statement is made during the course of investigation to the police or to the investigating officer then such a statement cannot be used for any purpose at all but to produce out the section 162 cars out certain exceptions even section 161 162 also permits the statement to be used only for one purpose that is for the purpose of contradicting the maker provided the maker namely the person who made the statement is examined as a prosecution witness in the same case if the person who made the statement is examined as a defense witness or as a court witness the statement cannot be used to contradict and further the statement cannot be used for the purpose of general cross examination 162 CRPC permits the statement to be used only for one single purpose that is for the purpose of contradicting the maker suppose the accused wants to use the statement wants to use the confession in his favor as I already told you section 25 is not a bar but section 162 is a bar therefore if the confession had been made to a police officer during the course of investigation falling under section 161 of the court then it cannot be used for any purpose including for the purpose of using it in favor of the accused so that is how the confession of the accused becomes useless either in his favor or against him except the previso contained in section 27 now let us take another illustration suppose after committing the crime the accused goes to the police station and he makes a confession to the police officer based on that confession FIR is registered now this confession which forms part of the which which is the first in earliest information upon which the case has been registered is not a statement falling under section 161 so as to attract the bar under section 162 of the court this statement is much prior to the investment of the investigation you all know very well that investigation commences after the registration of the case here this confession was made before registration of the case and upon this compression only case itself is registered therefore this will not fall under section 161 of the court and therefore it will not be barred by section 162 this confession cannot be used against him because this is the the bar under section 25 will operate I have already told you that to attract section 25 it is not necessary that the confession should have been made to an officer investigating the case to any officer any police officer any time anywhere that is barred by section 25 which cannot be used against him but if this confession made upon which FIR was registered is in favor of the accused then he can certainly use the same in his favor he can admit the confession he can very well say that this was the confession made by me it is admissible because I want to use it in my favor section 25 is not a bar 25 is not a bar to use the same in my favor 162 is not applicable because this was not made during the investigation such compression can be made use of by the accused please my dear friends you may have an occasion where in a case you may not find any valid defense from out of the answers elicit during cross examination of prosecution witnesses or from any other material at the end you may have to rely on fall back on the confession of the accused itself but the confession can be used in favor of the accused only in one circumstance which I have already told you that is which was made prior to the registration of the case and after registration of the case if any confession is made it is not admissible at all okay so this is a confession made to the police suppose the accused from the jail writes a letter to the magistrate um sorry to the to the police officer investigating the case wherein he confesses whether this would be hit by section 25 yes certainly it will be hit because any this this will be hit both under section 25 as well as by section 162 of the court of criminal procedure 25 of the evidence that says confession made to the police officer 162 says that any statement may do in the course of investigation so both the bars will apply therefore that is not admissible suppose the accused writes a letter to the jail superintendent and he records that he makes a statement he records that what is the evidentiary value of that is it a confession made to the police officer now we have to examine whether the person who acts of the acts of the jail superintendent is a police officer there are also instances where the officers who are from the police department are drawn to the jail department and they are asked to manage the jails so by appointment he is a police officer if by appointment he is a police officer confession made to him in the jail is also hit by section 25 if on the contrary he is an officer appointed not as a police officer not from the police department but in the jail department he is not a police officer he is nothing but a superintendent or manager managing the jail he has got nothing to do with either deduction of crime or prevention of crime so as to be a police officer such a confession is admissible in evidence this is all about confession very often and I can say that almost in all cases we find that there is a confession now this has become a trend for the police officers to produce a statement set to have been driven by the accused as a confession before the court for some purpose or the other now as I just now told you that section 27 is here provisioned to section 25 section 27 says that so much of information which leads to a discovery of a fact alone is admissible in evidence now there is a long confession given by the accused there is a long confession given by the accused in that he speaks of he says about his family background etc etc and the way in which he committed the crime and where he has he done some article like a tipped article etc he gives such a long statement now what happened before 1947 there were divergent views expressed by various courts referring to section 27 please kindly look into section 127 for a moment provided that that is why I said that this is a previso this is a previso to section 25 provided that when any fact is deposed as to as discovered in consequence of the information received please kindly underline this word it is not in consequence of confession in consequence of an information received from a person accused of any offense in the custody of the police officer so one more condition is that section 25 does not say that at the time when he makes the statement he should have been in police custody but section 27 says that at the time when he makes the statement he should be in the police custody that is after arrest now there was lot of controversies over this somebody some some court said that custody can be heard only by arrest and therefore any confession made after such arrest after the person has come into custody alone will fall under section 27 now this has been watered down by the Honorable Supreme Court in very many judgments law is so settled which says that the moment he goes and surrenders to the police or the moment the police officer keeps him under his control then it is deemed that he is under in custody in the custody of the police officer therefore for the purpose of section 27 we need not necessarily be an arrest which is a lawful arrest under custody if he surrenders or if he submits himself to the custody of the police then or if the police officer keeps him under his control then there is a deemed custody for the purpose of section 27 and so the information so much of information is admissible in a section 27 we will kindly see the further so much of such information whether it amounts to a confession or not as reacts distinctly to the fact thereby discover may be proved here you also you have to take note of one more phrase whether it amounts to a confession or not earlier I wanted you to note one thing that is in consequence of information I pointed out it is not in consequence of confession now again it is repeated here whether it amounts whether it means the information amounts to confession or not therefore section 27 speaks only of an information not anything more that information according to this phrase may be a confession or may not be a confession even the information need not be a confession it may be it is only an information at times it may be a confession at times it may not be a confession also now referring to this provision on interpreting this there were divergent views expressed by various high court more particularly a full bunch of madras high court in athappa count and case took the view that he once there is discovery of a fact so in common parlance we we call it for our understanding I am saying recovery of recovery of a material object this for understanding I am saying but it's strictly speaking half per section 21 discovery of a fact so something is recovered from out of the information given by the accused then the madras high court took the view that the entire compression commencing from the first word to last word is admissible so this was in 1937 madras so this was a law holding the field in the madras so far as the madras state is concerned what was happening was based on such a compression made to the police officer people were all convicted holding that the compression is voluntary it is admissible and that is how the people were all convicted this was going on for about 10 years then came the judgment of the honorable a preview council in 1947 pulikuri kotea in pulikuri kotea's case the preview council reversed the view taken by the madras high court now in pulikuri kotea's case you may kindly keep in mind these are the words he gave a long compression in which lastly he said if you take me I will show you the place where I hit on the knife with which I stabbed Shibaya this was the statement now as per review of the madras high court not only this line the entire compression was admissible but in pulikuri kotea the preview council took the view that reject the entire compression which you have got no relevance which you have got nothing to do with the discovery of a factor at all so this one line in the compression alone relates to a discovery what is that one line if you take me I will show you the place where I hit on the knife okay with which I stabbed Shibaya the preview council said referring to these words as relates distinctly the term distinctly was taken note of very seriously by the preview council and the preview council said that segregate and find out those words which are very essential to form an information for the purpose of the discovery of a admit that portion alone not the entire compression not any other portion so saying in this case in the illustration in pulikuri kotea the preview council said that if you take me to so on so place I will identify I will show the knife which I have hidden this part alone is admissible with which I stabbed Shibaya was held to be inadmissible but practically saying that in many courts without understanding this legal consequence the some portions which are which you have got nothing to do with this distinctly are also admitted so my dear friends be careful while while dealing with any such compression under section 27 to see whether it falls within the norms prescribed or laid down by the preview council in pulikuri kotea which has been accepted by Indian courts by by the honorable supreme court in number of judgment this all very elementary therefore I do not want to say anything more I my my point here in section 27 is I told you when we read section 27 25 we have to see that compression can be used in his favor because bar is only to the against him now come to section 27 it say the compression whether it amounts to a compression or not in the pulikuri kotea case I will show you the place where I have hidden the knife there is no compression it is nothing but a simple information there is no compression because the compression party has been deleted from admission but there are cases where the information may amount to compression in pulikuri kotea case the information is not a compression at all it is only an information in any case for that matter you can say in most of the case which we do every day the accused will make a voluntary compression statement in which he will say that I have hidden the properties in so and so place I have hidden the stolen properties in so and so place this stolen the term stolen is inadmissible I will I have hidden the the golden chain in so and so place that alone is admissible not the stolen the history these things are not at all admissible in in in evidence okay so this is what section 27 says now one more thing in section 27 is that the information may amount to compression that phrase is also that I give you one small illustration by which you can understand now suppose the accused gives a compression like this I have hidden 100 grams of ganja in my house now you can if you take out this ganja from the statement then it makes no sense at all therefore the entire statement that this entire line is to be admitted what is that I will show you I have hidden 100 grams of ganja in my house so here this statement amounts to compression please understand when you read any legal any provision of any statue you have to find meaning for every word and what the legislature is intended to convey that if you with that in mind if you look at this you will find why this phrase has been used by Mr. Stephen the author of the evidence act whether it amounts to a compression or not so this is you read this pulikuri kotaya for the purpose of section 27 and for the that that that has been approved or being followed in several judgments of this honorable by the honorable supreme court so I do not want to take much time on that now let us go to section 30 of the evidence act section 30 of the evidence act speaks of the confession of your co accused the confession of co accused is not relevant at all it is no evidence at all there is some popular uh misconception in certain sections of the legal fraternity human that a confession of the co accused can be used against the other other accused how under what circumstances can be used used to be deliberated upon if you look at section 30 it says that when more person than one or being jointly tried tried jointly for the same offense and a confession made by one such person affecting himself and some other such person is proved the court may take into consideration in section 30 does not declare that it is relevant it only says that it can be only taken into consideration now in a given case suppose the first accused gives a confession let it be a judicial confession let it be a an extra judicial confession made to some other officer or somebody can this be used again the co accused again a two that he dealt with in section 30 of the evidence act the first and foremost condition for this is for implying section 30 is that there has to be a joint trial first of all if there is no joint trial then confession made by the other accused cannot even be admitted in evidence it is totally inadmissible very good let us say that there is a joint trial then how the confession used to be made use of no whether it can be the substantive evidence no it cannot be this question or before the again before the Privy council in Bhubani sagu versus the king AIR 1949 Privy council pay the 257 AIR 1949 Privy council pay the 257 there the Privy council held at the how an extra a confession of a co accused used to be approached by the court the Privy council said that first to begin with keep the confession of the co accused aside first don't look at look into that at all don't look at keep it aside marshal all the other evidence is available in the case against him to look into the other evidences marshal them assess them on such marshaling on such assessment of all the other evidences if the court comes to the conclusion yes this year two is guilty then as a last resort look into the confession made by the first accused namely the co accused a question arose before the Privy council when the court has already come to the conclusion from all the other evidences that he is guilty then why should the court look into the co accused the confession the Privy council answered and said that it is with a view to further strengthen your conclusion which you already arrived at therefore in nutshell you cannot begin with the confession of the co accused and if there is no other evidence at all against the accused the confession of the co accused will have no use and it cannot be considered at all for any purpose this was the law laid down by the privy council in boob on isagu year 1949 this judgment was subsequently followed by the honorable supreme court in kashmira singh versus state of madhya pradesh in reported in a year 1952 a year 1952 supreme court page 159 kashmira singh now this kashmira singh was some who are either doubted therefore the matter went before a constitution bench to decide this small issue as to how to deal with the confession of the co accused that was in haricharan gurmi haricharan gurmi versus state of bihar reported in a year 1964 supreme court page 1184 page 1184 so as for this judgment we bear in this judgment the constitution bench upheld the view taken in the earlier two judgments one by the privy council which was followed in kashmira singh by the supreme court therefore the law as on today is that the confession of the co accused is of no use and the proper approach what is the small what is the what is the little use it is not completely no use there is a little use what is the little use you have to first to marshal all the other evidences keeping the confession of the co accused aside and on such marshalling on on such assessment if the court is able to come to the conclusion that he is guilty then as a last resort in order to have sent to the said conclusion the court can also look into the confession of the the confession of the co accused so this is the very little use which the confession of the co accused can can be can be made use of this is the settled law now there is a horizon some problem with this law also of late now upon from the police i'm sorry upon from the magistrate now on the sentence special enactments even a police officer has been empowered to record your confession by giving warning by satisfying his himself about the about the volunteerness etc take for example the third act there is a mark in that act section 15 of the act says two things number one confession need not be recorded duly shelly by a magistrate a police officer often the above the rank of superintendent of police is empowered to record a confession if and he is required to make the same warnings and the same procedure which are followed under section 164 by a magistrate such a confession is admissible in evidence though he is a police officer please mind that i was telling with general law as per section 25 that a confession made to a police officer is totally inadmissible except as per the previous out to section 27 but there are certain enactments more particularly in the in the third act there is a provision which says that a confession made to this police officer namely an officer often above the rank of superintendent of police is admissible in evidence because this is a special enactment this includes and override section 25 such a confession is admissible this provision further says that such a confession is substantive evidence again co-accused as well against co-accused as well therefore section 30 to submit and is also excluded under the third act the only condition is that there has to be a joint trial that has not been done away with if there is joint trial the confession made to a police officer by the first accused is admissible and it is substantive against the first accused and again it is substantive against the second accused as well because the second 30 is not made applicable to that extent this provision was challenged on the ground that it is unreasonable it is arbitrary you please kindly see if a confession is made by if by an approver then the approver is in the box his evidence can be tested by means of cross examination the truth or otherwise of the comparison of the statement evidence can be tested by means of cross examination but in this case he is a co-accused he is not going to be examined assuming that the first accused examines himself as a witness as a defense witness after taking permission under section 315 of the court the second accused cannot cross examine him effectively and citing this as a reason and also on various other grounds it was argued before the Honorable Supreme Court in Karthar Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1994 3 SCC 1994 3 SCC page 569 where this provision was challenged this provision was challenged the Honorable Supreme Court in this case declared that it is constitutional and it is not ultra virus of article 14 as well as article 21 of the Constitution of India therefore here trend has now come to be in state that special enactments are made now where such a provision is made to overcome the bar in section 25 as well as in section 30 there are some special enactments those special enactments could not be challenged on the touchstone of constitutionality because of the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in Karthar Singh so therefore virtually in many special enactments the solemn function of section 25 and 30 have been done away with in my personal view that this judgment if not in the near future one day this may be reconsidered by the Honorable Supreme Court by a larger bench and it will undergo some change so this is regarding section 30 now again rebutting back to section 27 section 27 as I pointed out to you mandates that the confession or the information should have been made while in custody I also told you that custody can be heard by arrest the moment a person is arrested he comes to the custody the police and I also told you even in the absence of arrest a person can surrender himself to the authority of the police to the custody thereby he can come to the custody the police I said now this provision classifies a person in custody and a person not in custody let us say that in a particular case there are two accused one accused makes a confession while in custody which leads to a discovery of a fact this statement is admissible again chigam under section 27 suppose the second accused without coming to the custody the police makes a statement he is not in the custody the police then his statement is not falling under section 27 this was argued as an unreasonable classification and it is argued as an arbitrary classification they said when you are giving the benefit to a person who has not been arrested why the same benefit is not given to me the police officer refuses to arrest one accused records the statement section 27 is not applicable in other case the police officer exercises his power and arrest him there the statement becomes admissible under section 27 so this was considered this was argued as unreasonable classification the honorable supreme court this is a very interesting case I would request all our friends to once read the judgment this has traced the entire history of confession this has traced the entire the purpose of section 27 at the how section 27 is reasonable section 27 they are the honorable supreme court while upholding the constitutionality of section 27 rejecting this argument of arbitrariness etc held like this even though the confession or statement made while in custody is tainted and so inadmissible if the truth of the information is assumed by the discovery it may be presumed to be true and therefore it is admissible so there is a presumption that it is untainted otherwise it is true therefore it is admissible with this observation the by majority there are five judges three judges said section 27 is constitutionally valid one judge a very celebrated judge of yesterday he had honorable justice subarov he said that this section 27 not only section 27 section 162 which permits a statement admissible as stated in the previous of the section 162 he says both the provisions are unconstitutional this was a view taken by honorable judges subarov now the fifth judge honorable justice hidayatullah he concurred with the majority but he gave his own reasons therefore ultimately the honor of the court was by four is to one four judges holding that section 27 is constitutionally valid this classification is reasonable and there is no arbitrariness one judge holding that it is this classification is unreasonable it is arbitrary and therefore section 27 is unconstitutional there are now brothers there are two line of thinking please kindly see whether it is constitutional or unconstitutional though we are bound by the judgment our thinking process cannot stop cannot nothing can deter us from having this thinking process further and one day to again test the same the judgment all i would request all our friends to read the judgment once a i r 1960 supreme court pay the double one two five double one two five please kindly read the judgment and subsequently the very same judgment very same provision section 27 came to be challenged in another case before the honorable supreme court this time this is a after the advent of the constitution this the judgment again came in the judgment it was tested on the ground that it it is hit by article 23 it amounts to testimonial compulsion therefore art section 27 should be struck down as unconstitutional this view was the this was taken in a state of Bombay but kathikala agad this is a very popular case you know very well in kathikala agad case section 27 was challenged on a different ground there they said that it is hit by article 23 here again the constitution bench held no it is not hit by that so there therefore there are at least two constitution bench now upholding section 27 of the evidence act now one more thing i want to say with this i will go to section 10 again now you are saying chandu's case that is parliament attack is all these provisions came up for consideration before the honorable supreme court honorable just a pv reddy yet another eminent judge of yesteryear and has held discussed about one important issue there is a popular view that if a joint confession is made by two people simultaneously or jointly which leads the discovery of a fact then unless it is shown as to whose information is the fact information the confession the it cannot be admitted similarly if two people take the police officer together and point out to the place where the incriminating article is hidden the earlier view was such joint discovery is also not admissible in evidence under section 27 now this was reconsidered in chandu's case now be friend be informed that the law today is that joint confession simultaneous confession simultaneous information simultaneous joint information leading to joint recovery is not a bar to admit the confession or the statement under section 27 of the evidence act the honorable supreme court you know that's in chandu's case this is a vast departure made after several decades to my knowledge the judgment now the chandu's case 2014 you know very well these are the observations made by the honorable supreme court section 27 speaks of a person accused of this word has been interpreted now it says a person accused need not be a single person it could be two or more persons simultaneous disclosure is not does not make it the statement inadmissible simultaneous the language used is joint disclosure simultaneous disclosure a fancy does not make the statement inadmissible this is the law holding the field as are today my dear friends please keep this in mind now let us go to section 10 of the evidence act here to I was saying that a confession made by a co-IQs is of no use virtually no use except the limited purpose for which it can be used well referring to section 30 I was repeatedly saying I also told you about the thada act etc now if you go to section 10 of the evidence act this is very interesting I will take another ten minutes I will close please kindly come to section 10 this says where there is a reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired together to commit an offense so first of all it there has to be a reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired this is the initial condition which is to be satisfied yet if this is satisfied what follows section says or an actionable anything said done or written by any one of such persons in reference to their common intention after the time when such intention was first entertained by any one of them is a relevant fact as again each of the person believe to be so conspiring so this is very easy to understand the first and foremost condition is that the court should have reasons grounds to believe that there was conspiracy between these accused let it be two three four any number of accused if the court arrives at such a conclusion then anything said that is any statement made anything done anything said anything anything done or anything written all the three during the period of conspiracy is substantive evidence against all to prove only one thing that is conspiracy please understand this section 10 in the opening part states that the court should have reasonable ground to believe that there is conspiracy then it says if you once hold or not not only if you once hold such a view that there was conspiracy then anything said anything written anything done is a substantive evidence against all the accused if I give a small illustration then you will understand this suppose three people can't fire on January 1st to commit the murder of only three persons now now murder take place on 10th January so January 1st conspiracy take place January 10th murder take place in between on one day one accused makes a confession makes a confession to his friend say we have to be all three of us have decided to do away with this man this is a confession made by one accused in the absence of the other two accused this is made on January 2nd so January 3rd the second accused writes a letter to his friend where he says we have decided to do away with that man but we want money please keep money arranged I will come and collect it this letter written by second accused is collected and produced before the court this is also nothing but a statement by one of the accused in the absence of the other two now third accused on 5th January he goes to a shop and purchases a knife in the absence of the accused one and two that knife was subsequently used for the purpose of commission of the crime now he did something so one accused made a statement orally the other one made a written statement the other one did a thing he purchased all these three can be used as substantive evidence against the respective person no difficulty in that if I write a letter I am bound by that I am responsible I got to explain if I do a particular thing you can make use of that against me because I am bound by that but this is used against the others section 10 permits that section 10 permits that you please kindly see to you employ section 10 two three conditions are required number one the confession I am sorry first of all from out of the other materials excluding this from out of the other materials the court should found grounds should find grounds that is a reasonable grounds to believe that there was conspiracy this from the rest of the evidences the court has to come to a prima facie conclusion yes there was conspiracy if this conclusion not conclusion this belief is arrived at if this belief is arrived at then the court can invoke section 10 by invoking section 10 now the confession the statement the something done everything can be brought on record by admission as substantive evidence based on that the accused can be or each accused can be convicted based on this this the the statement made by the other accused so section 10 is in a way like a proviso to section 24 as well as section 30 and also section 27 but question arose as to whether any statement made after the main offense has been committed is admissible under section 10 no the hand of supreme court in very many number of cases including in that naudu Singh sandhu's case has reiterated that if a confession or any statement or anything done after the controversy confide what is done is not admissible suppose the accused is arrested after the after the occurrence main occurrence he makes a judicial confession or he makes an extracurricular anything that is admissible only against him it is governed by section 30 as against others it will not fall under section 10 please kindly note that in order to employ section 10 the statement either oral or written or anything done should have come into being when the conspiracy was still in force still yet to be executed you once the conspired act is executed then the conspiracy comes to an end therefore after that whatever he said whatever is written whatever is is is done he is not admissible by employing section 10 of the evidence act if you see in most of the cases where the conspiracy is hasty in secrecy in most of the cases it is difficult to prove the conspiracy by means of direct evidence by means of circumstantial evidence can be proved suppose the circumstantial evidence is also wanting on certain aspects if the circumstantial evidence do not make out a complete chain then that missing link can be supplied by these statements admitted under section 10 of the evidence act this provision section 10 was employed at least in four cases to convict the accused though there was no sufficient evidence to convict the accused supplying the missing links filling up the gaps by the use of the evidence admitted under section 10 hardcore criminals were all convicted in this country so section 10 is an enabling provision to prove only conspiracy but please also be informed of that section anything admitted under section 10 will be relevant to prove only the conspiracy not the main offense not the other offenses committed that limitation also you should not forget section 10 is only for the purpose of proving the conspiracy because the conspiracy by itself is an offense now as per section 120 b of IPC to punish a person under section 120 b not for punishing him for any other offense like 302 or any other offense only for the purpose of punishing a person for the offense of conspiracy you can employ section 10 that is the limitation contained in section 10 now if you want to know the true import or the sweep of this particular provision section 10 which is often used in very sensational cases please kindly read at least four or five judgment number one the judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of assassination of our Honorable then Prime Minister Madam Indira Gandhi then the next one is the assassination case of the former Prime Minister Honorable Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi then this parliament attack case Navjaya Singh Chandu then that Bombay Blast case these are all the cases if you read the last one the Navjaya Singh Sandhu's case a classic judgment by Honorable just a PV ready on section 10 referring to all the previous judgments on this and I do not want to read all those judgments and I do not want to trace even the history of section 10 as I believe that this much is enough for me to say on this aspect so in conclusion I would say I am sorry before conclusion I told you that I would decide some judgments to you we kindly take note of the judgment in Agnu Nagasya versus state of Bihar Agnu Nagasya versus state of Bihar 1965 Supreme Court AIR wherein the Honorable Supreme Court has dealt with the issue as to whether the confession made by the acquit can be used in his favor at what stage so there was one case mutteiteven case from Privy Kaur from Madrasaikot where the Madrasaikot took the view that the confession can be made use of in his favor that was distinguished subsequently by the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court has now said that in that case on facts the confession was made before the affair was registered because only on the basis of the confession affair itself was registered therefore section 25 is not a bar to use the statement in his favor but 162 bar is not applicable because it was made before registration of the case for that purpose you please kindly read this judgment Agnu Nagasya versus state of Bihar now so far as the officer police officer and all the other things this tohfansing versus state of Tamil Nadu that is pending before the Honorable Supreme Court on reference now judgment is yet to come the references as to whether the officers of NCB not got the control bureau or police officers for the purpose of section 25 admittedly they are not police officers appointed in terms of the police act they are officers drawn from various other departments whether they are police officers only for the purpose of section 25 so as to admit or not to admit the confession made by the accused under section 67 of the act that is pending before the Honorable Supreme Court we are waiting for a judgment the matter is being argued before the Honorable Supreme Court so therefore in conclusion I would say that section 24 speaks of a confession which is admissible if it is free from threat promise or cohesion 25 is a complete bar if it is made to a police officer then who is a police officer is a again a question to be answered in each case then section 27 constitutionality has been upheld though there are divergent views on that now section 27 says that any information which will lead distinctly to the discovery effect alone is admissible now coming to section 30 condition for accepting the court to the confession is that there has to be a joint trial number two the proper approach is to keep it aside marshal or assess all the other evidences and if only the court is able to come to the conclusion that this is guilty then in order to reassure itself the court can look into the court to the confession also that the limited purpose for which it can be used I have also told you that how does it turn to a certain in this country that special laws are made to overcome section 25 section 27 as well as section 30 by making provisions stating that confession made to a police officer is also admissible in certain circumstances on satisfying certain conditions and that is also substantive evidence against the court is also some section 30 is also overcome by these special provisions such law has been upheld by the honour of supreme court in katharsing so these are latest that also I have pointed out to you then so far a section 10 is concerned I have explained to you that section 10 can be applied only in k in the event the court finds grounds to believe reasonable grounds to believe that there was conspiracy then these statements are admissible against everyone their section 30 is not applicable as I told you section 30 plays a vital role makes the confession of the co-accused of very little use but section 10 says that the confession of the co-accused if it was made during the period of conspiracy is fully admissible it is substantive against the co-accused also but it will go only to prove the conspiracy not to prove any other offense that is what section 10 also I have said then regarding section 27 I have already pointed out to you that there is a shift change in the law what was the law before Chandu was that joint discovery joint disclosure simultaneous disclosure simultaneous discovery where all held to be inadmissible in those days now the law has been changed in Chandu's case therefore joint discovery is also admissible and I think that with this the time is up therefore I can conclude thank you Mr Vikrant for having given me this wonderful opportunity now go out to you if there is any question I am prepared to answer please thank you though you have given such an insights good one hour 40 minutes yes large issues which were in the mind of the participants they would be over but still there are certain questions whether a co-president yes yes the participants need not write thank you because in that entire game the question gets popped up whether a co-prisoner can be a person whether a co-prisoner can be a person in authority if he said accused that better to confess otherwise police torture you better be I have also faced this torture whether or not this would be hit by section 24 if accused makes such confession certainly it is certainly it is hit by section 24 because for the purpose of applying the bar under section 24 I told you that section 24 is negative it speaks a irrelevancy not about relevancy so it says that if it appears to the court that the confession would have been obtained by either co-president undue influence etc etc then the confession is irrelevant how it will appear it cannot be defined in case to case we have to see whether there appears some material to show that the confession was obtained by promise threat etc here in the illustration in the issue which you have placed before me I am 100 percent sure that this confession is hit by section 24 it is not admissible it is irrelevant because there are sufficient materials on record to infer that it was obtained by means of this promise co-retion etc okay yes statement made by accused during investigation of the case yes please during the investigation of the case in the office of the i.o who is a special officer like the office of c4 will he be deemed as a statement under the custody the said accused was not arrested by a c4 yes see two things now section 24 does not require that the officer should be an officer in charge of the case or an officer in charge of police station or an officer investigating the case he may be any police officer so here it is immaterial whether he was this officer or that officer he is a police officer by appointment therefore section 25 complete bars the statement from being admitted okay number two so for the purpose of 27 for the purpose of 27 the person must be in custody that was that was the argument before the constitution bench so supreme court the classification whether in custody or not in custody there is arbitrary classification that has been negative now when a person will come into custody there are number of judgments where one judgment of the madrasa code in roshan bb full bin judgment authored by hand of justice uh restaurant pondy and was later on appealed by him this is reporting kathar Singh also where they have said that custody does not mean a custody secured by means of arrest a custody can be made by mere surrender by mere surrender you know about that johindar kumar's case also the accused surrenders gets into the custody therefore entitled for bail for surrendering and accused to the court there is no provision where is the provision therefore custody if you go to that uh what is that uh the another case authored by honorable justice uh uh retinal pandian anupam gulkarni 1994 the same issue same issue when a person comes into custody a person can come into custody on arrest or on his own surrender or the officer keeping him under his control anupam gulkarni case these have been very categorically held by honorable justice retinal pandian therefore in this case undoubtedly he is in the custody of police therefore the statement made by him is inadmissible as per section 25 and if at all any recovery is made so that section that statement is adverse over under section 27 of the evidence yes right sir uh sunil kumar bangri how can it be proved that the confession of the accused was made slash taken simultaneously simultaneously that is very easy the police have you see i have seen many many uh confession recorded like this the confession may be so on so on so on so two people story is same the police officer will say these two people said and it is not like a bhajan singing together so he said and this man also said and both were interchangeably saying i recorded that he said one word he said the second word he said the third one like that i have seen confessions recorded like this by the police officer so joint confession made by so on so on so on so i have seen that so that is the reason why the supreme court was all along saying that unless it is found as to who made the first statement then we cannot apply section 27 now in chandu's case a departure has been made that's a problem no yes pranshu yadav explain the scope of term in reference to the proceedings as mentioned in section 24 in reference to section 24 no no section 24 not in reference to section 10 alone speaks of that i can unmute pranshu having reference to the charge again having reference not having reference to the charge against the accused okay what is the what is going to be the charge ultimately in reference to that he to a mate statement that is relating to that he to a mate statement that is confession suppose uh an accused speaks about his involvement in some other crime that confession is not admissible in the in the present case it may be relevant in the other case so a confession made in respect of the offense which is being tried the talent is admissible that is what in reference to his state uh conveys okay i'll be uh in the statement of confession example given that i have at my home 10 grams of ganja well this will be an inadmissible which part will be considered relevant it is that is what i said see if there's a very interesting question that one friend has asked if you look at section 27 this phrase so much of in such information what is the information i have hidden ganja in my house these are information whether it amounts to a confession or not so here it is a confession it is admissible so we may have some doubt because earlier the section says information received so it is there is a scope to argue that the information means not a confession in order to obviate that kind of argument this has been again clarified in the very same section to say whether it amounts to a confession or not therefore if i say if i could say i have hidden 100 grams of gold in my house there is no confession this is only an information it's same i choose if he says i have hidden 100 grams of ganja in my house then possession of ganja amounts to confession he is possessing ganja in his house it is confession so it amounts to confession though it amounts to confession it is admissible under section 27 because if you remove that birth in pulikuli kothaya one one phrase was removed i will i have hidden the knife at my house with which i stabbed sivaya so with which i stabbed sivaya can be deleted removed for a consideration from admission so the argument before the preview council pulikuli kothaya was if this is removed then it's a knife with which i stabbed sivaya supplies that link this was the argument supreme court said no i'm sorry preview council said and supreme court has also approved that link used to be established by means of other evidence not by this okay now i also want to tell our friend that for the purpose of section 25 it is not every information or it is not every fact to discover make the statement admissible it is inferrable that the state that the discovered fact should have relevance to the crime concerned if that link is missing then the statement is not admissible let let let me say one small illustration suppose the there is a theft in the house jewels are stolen now some jewels have been recovered from the accused he says that i have hidden the jewels at my house there is no confession in this i have hidden the jewels in my house there is no confidence only on information now if there is no evidence to say that these property these ornaments recovered from the accused are stolen properties if that evidence is wanting then the statement itself becomes inadmissible because the relevance of the discovered fact has not been established by the prosecution in many cases i have seen the prosecutor omitting to ask this question how this link is to be established first of all it is to be established that the accused made this statement number two it should be established that from out of the statement the jewel was recovered that was discovered so section 27 now one more thing thoroughly it should also be established by showing the jewel to its owner and say that this was the jewel which was stolen from my house if this part of the evidence is not available then section 27 will not be applicable therefore to put it in nutshell in one line i will say it is not every discovery which make the statement admissible it is only discovery of your relevant fact which make the statement admissible the relevancy used to be established by means of other evidence yes brother yes selvam the phrase person accused is descriptive FIR registered subsequently after confession had been made to police officer yes where do we get that the phrase person accused of the description this is that posted at 645 or chat box no no see what is the question please see confession is made before the FIR is registered the phrase person accused of is descriptive FIR registered subsequently after confession had been made to police officer where do we get that the phrase person accused of is descriptive no no see that for that you want to go to section 25 say section 25 bar is there whether the statement was made you just see section 25 it does not have any qualification it does not say the investigating officer this police officer that police officer even to an american police officer if you make a complaint it is inadmissible police officer is a police officer and he does not also say that it should have been made at a particular point of time therefore confession made at any point of time is hit by section 25 okay now i also told you about section 162 if a confession is made during the course of investigation it also falls under section 161 therefore bar under section 162 will also be there okay in the illustration is suppose the confession was made prior to the registration of the case it will not fall under section 161 therefore the bar under section 162 is not applicable bar under section 162 will come into play if the statement was recorded during the course of investigation under section 161 CRPC now therefore this confession which was made prior to the registration of the case is hit by section 25 not by 162 it cannot be used against him what i said was it can be used in his favor because section 25 bars the same be used against him it can be used in his favor if he wants okay sir kurmesh one raga his full name is not coming in in case in police case the panch namah is built prior to the registration of case therefore what will be the punch whether that panch namah will be admissible panch namah prepared before the investigation yes what was the occasion for the police officer to prepare a panch namah before registration of the case this is a matter to be done during the course of investigation it may be a case where in the illustration it may be a case where the police officer had some other information upon that information had gone to the spot he prepared panch namah therefore it is prepared during the course of investigation it is admissible but the FIR is not admissible because it is it is a statement under section 161 hit by section because already investigating has commenced yes we have unmuted pranashu yadav i was just observing that he's just jotting down the notes it shows that what interest he was having but i will ask pranashu to just restrict to one question let the question that it becomes the webinar itself okay okay sir sir my question is section 24 is saying that if the accused appears to him reasonable for supporting that by making in if he will gain gain any advantage or avoid any avail of temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him so my question is that if any mla is saying to the accused person go and confess i will provide your poor girlfriend of five lakh rupees then whether it will hit by section 24 or not whether it will amounts to inducement or not surely brother surely it is an inducement see what is voluntary uninfluenced by anything uninfluenced by anything so this these three words used to hear are not exhaustive the test is whether the voluntary or not the court has a test whether it is voluntary or not the court need not confine itself yeah but sir in last last paragraph it is written that that he he believed that any kind of he can avoid any kind of evill or temporal nature with reference to the proceeding against him so in many cases i have seen that judge was uh supreme court was saying or high court was saying that the inducement of threat or promise should should come from the reference to the proceeding against him not otherwise let our outraging the cast outraging the cast will be not a threat to the accused person if the serpents is saying that i will brother it is it is purely a question of fact you cannot have a state jacket formula in one case the court may say on appreciation this can't be taken as a precedent first of all please understand that you will agree with me it is not a precedent it is a decision taken on facts it cannot be cited as a precedent in a given case in the in the background of the given set of facts the court may say that this will not amount to promise and this will not amount to threat and this will not amount to inducement the court may say but in a different case on in a different set of facts court may say that this is so it all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case therefore the judgments which about you want to make reference are not precedents at all they are not binding either horizontally or vertically of any court they are all findings and again criminal cases where is the question of any precedent there are some cases where the law is laid down then that becomes a precedent like i have told you about some judgments there is a chandus case and all that there if law is laid down or if a principle is enunciated then to that extent the judgment is the precedent but when the case is decided on facts where is the question of the judgment becoming precedent it is not a precedent at all it is not binding this judgment can only guide the court somebody in a judiciary or even the the supreme court on horizontally okay it can only guide it is not a precedent therefore in the it is a matter where decision is to be taken based on the facts okay please thank you thank you we have alluded Anupama Agarwal the question will be asked directly and i think we are getting we are touching seven so we should take only one or two questions yes please yes Anupama is not unmuting herself so i will read the question if a statement is given under the special law yes under the special law which states that the statement is uh readable as an evidence against him how can he escape from such statements when such statements are made involuntary no involuntary you see patya pa... Anupama has got unmuted says uh directly she will answer yes yes sir can i ask the question please yeah under the company's act in the company's act under session 217 under session 217 it is written that the statement is readable as an evidence against him okay and such statements are actually involuntary but now the case has been the complaint case has been filed by the sfio so how can he uh you know and the statements were given involuntarily okay so how can he uh now what is the difference yes my answer my answer please please take the answer you patya paul under the company's act there is no police officer in the case it is a private complaint procedure instituted by an authority competent has specified in the act itself number one number two he is not a police officer at all and as per the judgments of the corner of the supreme court he is not even deemed to be a police officer for the purpose of section 25 of the evidence act so for a company's act is concerned i'm sure he's not a police officer therefore section 25 section 27 are not applicable section 24 and 30 are applicable and whether the confession statement made to the officer was voluntary or not it proceeds from the statement has been made to a person an authority to that action there is admission now whether it was out of fear whether it was out of threat whether it was out of any promise etc is a matter to be elicited by way of transit nomination you have to bring on circumstances to doubt the voluntariness that is what you have to do you cannot have a different defense in your hands during cross-examination you have to establish or you may have some other evidences also you may put some defense witness if it is true that you was attacked by this man you can put some witnesses he will say and you have sustained injuries you can put in medical records like that only you have to establish that it is a question of fact so you cannot have a straight jacket formula yes so the problem here is that under section 2126 a person can be only given a bail if he can prove himself that the he is not a guilty of the contempt and now it is like it is it is because there is the cross-examination and all will happen later when the proceedings will go on but answer answer answer answer you will find because of section 216 under the companies that he is not getting the bail so cross-examination issue will come later so how will he defend himself get a bail you challenge that provision you challenge that provision as unreasonable as a arbitrary by anything after 14 the constitutional validity of that provision is already I tell you but that is what I'm saying that is what I'm saying that has not been helped now I tell you I want to inform you you know very well because we are practicing on the criminal side also see the similar provision is found in section 37 the narcotics act that were challenged the court has called it is constitutional and what can we do for it we can't help now section because of section 37 this that's a similar provision in narcotics are cases in respect of commercial quantities bail is not granted at all has a rule bail is not granted so but that is the law that is the view taken by the condo supreme court what can we do we are bombed with it okay yes next question ma'am this is the last question then we will just have a other wrap up for five minutes we have unmuted pulvy pulvy the question please good evening arachid yes please basically there's something in his memorandum and seizure punch in our this relates to section 27 of the Indian evidence act when I think for example when the thing is stolen and the accused says that I had I kept the stolen goods here so basically a statement is taken down by the police wherein they describe that this is what the accused said that is known as a memorandum punch in our mind later on the seizure punch in our mind where the police actually go to the place and they seize the objects now generally when this matter when it is put up to him during the time of evidence he denies it so how can such a statement be proved against the accused does it amount to confession because pulakori kothaya does say that that part where he says that this is an act with which I killed that cannot be used but in this case how to establish the link then I mean technically how to take it into evidence reading it into evidence during the recording of evidence no please please tell me first of all what what what were the hidden property what did happen no it is basically a stolen property 379 very good it's a stolen property so first of all in the statement I have hidden the hidden let us say the gold ornament I have hidden the gold ornaments in my house this is admissible yes the stolen golden ornament the stolen used to be removed stolen he speaks of the history so that is that is inadmissible that is to be removed that is pulakori kothaya norms so from out of the long statement you have to remove you have to minimize it which is which is so much of the statement informally which distinctly leads to a discovery for the discovery what amount of statement is required so the property is there I have hidden enough what is the property gold jewels that's all and whether it was stolen whether I found the found the same elsewhere or it was hidden by someone else this this this part is not admissible that is what pulikori kothaya says but it is to be proved as I told you this property the stolen property used to be established otherwise statement itself is inadmissible how to prove that the owner of the goods will say this property was my property which I kept in my house which was stolen so the stolen property was found in the possession of the accused it was the recovered on the base of the statement given no apply section 114 of the evidence act the presumption is that he has stolen so that is how the link used to be established okay so but but but when he actually denies making such a statement to the police itself or says it was under coercion okay in every case in every case accused in which case accused will admit that yes I made the statement yes this guy has made out of my statement in this case he will accept in every case he will deny so simply because he denied simply because he denies the court is not going to accept the denial okay so if there are reasons to if there are reasons to disbelieve the court will disbelieve there are reasons to believe the court will believe okay thank you sir sir it's not like 75 and we have that's drawn to us this it had been a wonderful session I can only say that the way you have assimilated the company law criminal procedures C4 NDPS that was that shows the volume of the manner in which father I would say one can always take a cue how to assimilate the entire facts put it across because it's not just while delivering a webinar one has to assimilate the facts but even in the law we see that there are a large number of facts large issues of large issues judgments etc but we are always it's just like they say that you have a ticking bomb in your hand so you have to control the ticking bomb and put the things also on the right way so before we part we will ask what is your tip to the participants because we have large number of people also watching on the Facebook as well as on this that what is your key how should one assimilate the facts how should their entire facts be funneled so that can they can report across while drafting then while preparing at the home because it's always that they say the best of the arguments are always invariably developed from one courtroom to the another because that that becomes a trigger point thank you very much for this question so I will tell as to what I were doing when I was practicing on the trial side because most of the these issues are very relevant for the trial side lawyers then for the of course for the upper and upper and side lawyers also now I would request you to first of all read the chart sheet the statement of witness documents not once twice thrice several times you read it you just simply whatever is asked by the judge or whatever is asked by the prosecutor anybody else you should say in which page this is stated by whom it is stated to that extent you should make yourself very thorough with the facts of the case number one and take very detailed uh in sections from your client and whenever you have any doubt about some particular fact involved in the case so for the criminal case is concerned call the client ask him as to what had happened at that time so whether there was bus going and he will give some information he will give from out of that you can develop he may say that at particular point of time I was in Chennai or I was in Mumbai so from that you get a clue now so you can further ask him what are the material to show that he was there etc etc like that you will get a lot of uh uh defenses from out of that so this is the first thing secondly before going to take up a case what are all the laws involved what are all the provisions involved read them not only once twice thrice any number of times and first of all understand the law know the first principle today I have not uh cited many judgments I have not ready any judgment for that matter I spoke only on first principles read the provision know the first principle first of all and after knowing the first principle in order to ensure as to what is the position of law as on today as the last resort go to the judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court as well as your own high court and the other high courts of course and read them then make yourself thorough with the facts as well as law then you go to the court to do the case this is what I would suggest to our friends I am very happy that so many people are participating it shows their interest in the learning and I will be very happy if I was succeeded in triggering that thought process in this in the endeavor of you at I am immensely thankful I purposely thank you for providing me this platform thank you thank you no doubt at all I would say that you're saying that even if one point at one point of mind somebody has been triggered the point I will say that it's not triggering the point rather you have hit the bullseye many people would cherish that the way it has been put across because triggering sometimes doesn't break the desired result but as we said last time that we had large number of participants in the participation itself while they were watching but another fact which I'm repeated again that even on our YouTube channel that is beyond law CLC you have the maximum hits maximum views it only shows that the manner in which you have elucidated the issues becomes very very clear amongst us we have a advocate which Vikash is Sharma he's been watching and participating in a lot of webinars he's time and again whenever he comes on your platform to hear you I've seen that he's writing thank you I said besides my being saying thank you it is just like beyond law CLC I would like some person beyond me also saying thank you so that it shows an expression that it's not a tutor at one that time and again I'm only saying beyond thank you thank you. Before that only one second I tell you about the last my answer to the North Kuri in one case just I was referring as a judge I am saying I was just referring to the records I did not notice the action register you know the party entry made by the medical officer then I called for that I found that the doctor had made a small entry like this and he is under the severe mental depression and take extra care this gave me some insight then I called for then I have to go then call for a call then I found there were 65 pages of documents showing that he was mentally ill it was on that ground he was acquitted ultimately that is why he said that lawyers should not feel that any statement or any information is a wasteful information you should get every information so thank you Mr. Vikas and I am really very proud that there are many lawyers and as you mentioned we are also participants I am very happy. Thank you to all the participants I will just ask Vikas to put in words before that I say that tomorrow another session today we have the confessions which is an integral part of proceeding a set etc in the criminal law tomorrow we have a webinar at 5 p.m procedural law master or servant that issue keeps on hovering in the mind of a lawyer and amongst us will be three honorable sitting judges it shows that people are actually appreciating that we are putting things in the right perspective tomorrow we have justice Rajiv Sahe and law a judge from sitting judge of Delhi High Court then we have justice Vibhu Bhatru judge Delhi High Court and then justice Damash Shashadri Naidu judge Mumbai High Court so three different three judges giving three different facets in a different way I can say that it looks very interesting and knowledgeable so all those participants who actually want to connect they can connect us through Instagram or Facebook for the updates besides what we have told today over to Vikas and thank you for all the participants not only who have participated on the zoom plus those who have watched us on the facebook plus those who will watch us subsequently even on the youtube channel when this entire webinar would be stay safe stay blessed everyone remain happy because just quick because she just one word two three lines from yourself because I said time and again you post it on the chat box you should be unmuted and express your views Vikas Vikas you are there Vikas Sharma sir hello yes sir we are able to hear you please get audible yes here Radha Vikas I will show you a video also thanks thanks my lordship for a wonderful session and thanks to special thanks to Mr. Vikas and his team for a wonderful session so thank you everyone this is called short crisp there couldn't be anything more crispier than what Vikas you'll see and I am feeling more proud because he's also Vikas thank you everyone