Ghulam Muhammad Khan vs Emperor on 22 December, 1924
In the case of Legal Remembrancer v. Lalit Mohan Singha Roy 62 Ind. Cas. 578 : 49 C. 167 at p. 169 : 25 C.W.N. 788 : 28 Cr. L J. 562 : (1922) A.I.R. (C.) 342 it would seem to have been decided somewhat contrary to, at any rate, what may be a part of the learned Judicial Commissioner's view. In that case an accused person came before a Magistrate and made a statement. The Magistrate finding that the statement was not a confession, did not apparently, take it down in writing or, if he did do so, destroyed it. However, he was called as a witness at the trial and gave evidence as to what the accused person had said to him. The Calcutta High Court hold that this oral evidence was not admissible; that Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. contemplated not only the taking of statements in the nature of a confession but also any kind of statements whether made by an accused person or by anybody else, that it was not competent for a Magistrate who was asked to take a statement under the provisions of Section 164, Cr. P.C. to give oral evidence of any such statement made to him by an accused person (or apparently by anybody else) if he had not in fact complied with the Provisions of the section by taking down the statement in writing and in the prescribed form. The decision in that case does not really deal directly with the question of the admissibility at a trial of statements made to a Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of Section 164, Cr. P.C. by an accused person or by anybody else, although inferentially one might perhaps gather that their Lordships contemplated that such statements, of_ whatever nature they might be, would be admissible, though this inference is doubtful. However, it is, now at any rate, strenuously argued before us by the learned Vakil who appeared for the appellant, that this statement which was made by the appellant to the Magistrate under the provisions of Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. should not have been admitted by the Trial Court and used as against the appellant to corroborate the evidence of the witness who says that he identified the appellant at the time of the dacoity. Of course, if one examines Section 164, Cr. P.C., it will be seen at once that the section contemplates more than one kind of statement; it distinctly refers to confessions and portions of the section deal specifically with confessions. But it also contemplates other statements.