Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. In the present case it was found that certain documents in the Chief Engineer's Office were tampered with and certain papers were substituted. The appellant was the Superintendent in the Chief Engineer's Office. On April 11, 1949, Shri P. N. Singhal, Officiating Chief Secretary to the Matsya Government, was making a departmental inquiry in respect of the missing documents. The appellant, among others, was questioned about the said documents. The appellant first made a statement, Ex. PL, in which he stated that he neither asked Bishan Swarup to bring file No. 127, nor did he recollect any cause for calling for that file on or about that date. As Shri Singhal was not able to find out the culprit, he expressed his opinion that if the whole truth did not come out, he would hand over the inquiry to the police. Thereafter, the appellant made a statement, Ex. P.L. 1, wherein, in clear terms, he admitted that about the middle of December 1948 Ram Kumar Ram took file No. 127- P. W.48 regarding issue of licence to the Bharat Electrical and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Alwar, from his residence to show it to his lawyers, and that he took the file more than once for that purpose. He also added that this was a voluntary statement. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Chief Secretary gave the threat that, if the appellant did not disclose the truth he would place the matter in the hands of the police and that the threat induced the appellant to make the disclosure in the hope that he would be excused by the authority concerned. There is no doubt that the Chief Secretary is an authority within the meaning of S.24 of the Evidence Act, but the simple question is whether the alleged statement by the said authority "appears" to the court to be a threat with reference to the charge against the accused. As we have said, under particular circumstances whether a statement appears to the court to be a threat or not is a question of fact. In this case the three lower courts concurrently held that in the circumstances of the case the statement did not appear to be a threat within the meaning of S.24 of the Evidence Act., but that was only a general statement which any person who lost his property and was not able to find out the culprit would make. It may be that such a statement under different circumstances may amount to a threat or it may also be that another court may take a different view even in the present circumstances of the case, but in exercising the powers under Art.136 of the Constitution we are not prepared to differ from the concurrent finding given by the three courts that in the circumstances of the present case that the said statement did not appear to them to be a threat."