Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Deonandan Dusadh vs Emperor on 16 February, 1928

Ganesan vs State Through on 2 August, 2024

Exceptional cases may certainly be imagined in which a person may give information without presenting himself before a police officer who is investigating an offence. For instance, he may write a letter and give such information or may send a telephonic or other message to the police officer. But in considering whether a statute is unconstitutional on the ground that the law has given equal treatment to all persons similarly circumstanced, it must be remembered that the legislature has to deal with practical problems; the question is not to be judged by merely enumerating other theoretically possible situations to which the statute might have been but is not applied. As has often been said in considering whether there has been a denial of the equal protection of the laws, a doctrinaire approach is to be avoided. A person who has committed an offence, but who is not in custody, normally would not without surrendering himself to the police give information voluntarily to a police officer investigating the commission of that offence leading to the discovery of material evidence supporting a charge against him for the commission of the offence. The Parliament enacts laws to deal with practical problems which are likely to arise in the affairs of men. Theoretical possibility of an offender not in custody because the police officer investigating the offence has not been able to get at any evidence against him giving information to the police officer without surrendering himself to the police, which may lead to the discovery of an important fact by the police, cannot be ruled out; but such an occurrence would indeed be rare. Our attention has not been invited to any case in which it was even alleged that information leading to the discovery of a fact which may be used in evidence against a person was given by him to a police officer in the course of investigation without such person having surrendered himself Cases like Deonandan Dasadh v. King Emperor ((1928) I.L.R. 7 Pat.
Madras High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - M S Ramesh - Full Document

In Re: Malladi Ramaiah And Anr. vs Unknown on 30 August, 1955

(iii) The confession must 'relate distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.' According to this decision, one of the essential ingredients is the person being accused of any offence at the time of making the statement. This was followed by a Bench of the Patna High Court in - 'Deonandan Dusadh v. Emperor,' AIR 1928 Pat 491 (C). It was there ruled that as the informant had not been accused of an offence at the time he made the statement, the statement was inadmissible under Section 27.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K S Rao - Full Document

State vs Memon Mohamad Husain Ismail And Anr. on 30 October, 1958

2. With regard to the panchnama Exhibit 54, or what will be more appropriate to state the statements of accused reproduced in the panchnama or deposed to by witnesses which are sought to be provide, it is argued that these are not admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned counsel argues that Section 27, which says "when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer" would show that the information must be given or a statement must be made by a person who at that time is accused of any offence and is in the custody of the police. If these two conditions are not satisfied then even if it satisfied the other conditions of the section it is not admissible. For the proposition that at the time of making the statement he must be an accused person the learned counsel has relied on Deonandan Dusadh v. Emperor, reported in ILR 7 Pat 411: (AIR 1928 Pat 491), and Jalla v. Emperor reported in AIR 1931 Lah 278. In ILR 7 Pat 411: (AIR 1928 Pat 491), it was held that a statement made by a person who was not accused of an offence at the time of making the statement, was not admissible under that section.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1