Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (1.14 seconds)
Documents citing Queen-Empeess vs Tribhovan Manekchand And Ors. on 10 October, 1884

Muthukumarsawmi Pillai And Ors. vs Emperor on 17 April, 1912

I agree with Batchelor, J., that a confession which is inadmissible against the person making it is a fortiori inadmissible against another person implicated by it. Queen-Empress v. Tribhovan Manekchand 9 B. 131 was cited by Mr. Napier in support of his contention. The question admittedly did not arise for decision in that case. The question was whether a confessional statement was admissible against the maker in an inquiry under Section 523, Criminal Procedure Code, as to whom certain stolen property should be returned. The Court held that the word confession has reference only to criminal proceedings, that Section 25 excluded the use of the statement in question in that case only in such proceedings and that the statement was receivable in evidence as an admission in the inquiry made by the Court as to the person entitled to the return of the property. Reliance is placed on the observation of West, J., that "confession" in Section 25 as in Section 24 means "a confession made by an accused person, which it is proposed to prove against him to establish an offence." No doubt, a confession would generally be made by an accused person and would be generally also used against him. The point made by the learned Judge was that Section 25 did not refer to the use of a confession in other than a criminal proceeding. I do not think he addressed himself to the question whether a confession should always be a statement by a party to the proceeding.
Madras High Court Cites 117 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Muthukumaraswami Pillai And Seven Ors. vs King-Emperor on 17 April, 1912

The one and only argument adduced against this plain construction is that Section 26 makes a confession made not to a Police officer but by a person in police custody inadmissible only against him and not against others, and it is urged that there is no sufficient reason for not excluding it against others also if a statement made to a police officer is excluded against others. It may be that the legislature thought the probable extent of police pressure in the one ease was likely to be leas than in the other and thai the fact of the maker of the statement being in police custody did not require its being excluded against others. I do not say this reason is convincing but this is not the only case where a Court is unable to find convincing reasons for distinctions made by the legislature, I am bound to attach more importance to the fact that very different language has been used by the legislature in two consecutive sections; there is no difficulty in finding a reason for the comprehensive language used in Section 25. I have no hesitation, in arriving at the conclusion that the statements of prosecution witness No. 6 and prosecution witness No. 12 to prosecution witness No. 31 are inadmissible in evidence, My opinion is in accordance with the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Emperor v. Harisingh Ganpatsingh (1910) 12 Bom L.R. 899, I agree with Batchblor, J., that a confession which is inadmissible against the person making it is a fortiori inadmissible against another person implicated by it. Queen-Empress v. Trlbhovan Maneokchand (1885) I.L.R. 9 Bom. 131 was cited by Mr. Napier in support of his contention. The question admittedly did not arise for decision in that cage. The question was whether a confessional statement was admissible against the maker in an inquiry under Section 523, Criminal Procedure Code, as to whom certain stolen property should be returned. The Court held that the word confession has reference only to criminal proceedings, that Section 35 excluded the use of the statement in question in that case only in such proceedings and that the statement was reaeivable in evidence as an admission in the enquiry made by the Court as to the person entitled to the return of the property. Reliance is placed on the observation of West, J., that "confession" in Section 25 as in Section 24 means "a confession made by an accused person, which it is proposed to prove against him to establish an offence. "No doubt a confession would generally be made by an accused person and would be generally also used against him. The point made by the learned Judge was that Section 25 did not refer to the use of a confession in other than a criminal proceeding. I do not think he addressed himself to the question whether a confession should always be a statement by a party to the proceeding.
Madras High Court Cites 117 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

The King-Emperor vs Nilakanta Alias Brahmachari And Ors. on 15 February, 1912

I agree with Batchelor, J. that a confession which is inadmissible against the person making it is a fortiori inadmissible against another person implicated by it. Queen-Empress v. Tribhovan Manekchand (1884) I.L.R. 9 B. 131 was cited by Mr. Napier in support of his contention. The question admittedly did not arise for decision in that case. The question was whether a confessional statement was admissible against the maker in an inquiry under Section 523, Criminal Procedure Code as to whom certain stolen property should be returned. The court held that the word confession has reference only to criminal proceedings, that Section 25 excluded the use of the statement in question in that case only in such proceedings and that the statement was receivable in evidence as an admission in the enquiry made by the court as to the person entitled to the return of the property. Reliance is placed on the observation of West, J. that ' confession' in Section 25 as in Section 24 means " a confession made by an accused person, which it is proposed to prove against him to establish an offence." No doubt, a confession would generally be made by an accused person and would be generally also used against him. The point made by the learned. Judge was that Section 25 did not refer to the use of a confession in other than a criminal proceeding. I do not think he addressed himself to the question whether a confession should always be a statement by a party to the proceeding.
Madras High Court Cites 116 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Mevaldas Takhatmal Lekhawani vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 25 March, 1981

Another very interesting point was also canvassed by Mr. Rane in connection with which he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Queen Empress v. Tribhovan Manekchand reported in (1907) ILR 9 Bom 131. In that case also the accused who was charged with the offence relating to a theft was acquitted by the Court and the question came before the Court whether the accused was entitled to retain the property which was the subject matter of the case and which was claimed by the complainant. The Court had to satisfy itself about the title of the accused or of the complainant to the property. On behalf of the complainant it was urged that the accused had made confession before the Police Officer stating that the property belonged to the complainant but that he had dishonestly taken over the same. Evidently such a statement was not admissible evidence for the purpose of using the same in any way against the accused for holding the offence proved against him. But a contention was urged before this Court that the Court was at liberty to look at the document for the Purpose of satisfying itself that the complainant had a just claim to the said property. This contention was upheld by this Court. The court had a look at the confessional statement in question and on the basis of the same it was satisfied that the complainant had at least a prima facie title to the property.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Suman And Etc. vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. Etc. on 7 April, 1986

In Queen-Empress v. Tribhovan Manekchand, (1885) ILR 9 Bom 131, West, J. observed 'confession' in section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act I of 1872 means, as in section 25, a 'confession made by an accused person' which it is proposed to prove against him to establish "an offence". We do not think we are precluded by section 25 from admitting evidence of the statement as evidence of a fact which goes to show that the testimony of Arumugam at the trial was true. The question of the weight of this evidence is, of course, a different matter."
Madras High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 2 - K Venkataswami - Full Document

Suman And Etc. vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. Etc. on 7 April, 1986

In Queen Empress v. Tribhovan Manekchand, (1885) ILR 9 Bom 13 1, West, J. observed 'confession' in section 25 of the Indian Evidence- Act I of 1872 means, as in section 24, a 'confession made by an accused person' which it is proposed to prove against him to establish "an offence". We do not think we are precluded by section 25 from admitting evidence of the statement as evidence of a fact which goes to show that the testimony of Arumugarn at the trial was true. The question of the weight of this evidence is, of course, a different matter."
Madras High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Arun Kumar Swarnakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026

25. It is a settled position of law that the statement made by the accused to the police as to the ownership of the property which was the subject matter of the proceedings against the accused although inadmissible as evidence against them at the trial for the offence with which they are charged, were admissible as evidence with regard to the ownership of a property inquiry held by the Criminal Procedure Code. This is the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in in case an in of Queen Empress v. Tribhovan Manekchand reported ILR 9 Bombay 131.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next