Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.39 seconds)
Emperor vs Panchkowri Dutt on 25 June, 1924 cites

Ragho Laya And Ors. vs Emperor on 23 April, 1917

19. Similar observations apply to this memorandum as have been made with regard to the memorandum of the 14th, and further it is open to this objection that it directs the accused to make the statement voluntarily. The Magistrate, in my opinion, wholly misunderstood his function in advising the accused as he seems to have done. An opinion, formed by the Magistrate upon materials, such as are disclosed by the record that he made, and I do not know what other materials he may or may not have elicited in the course of his conversations with the accused,---is not such as I would be justified in acting upon as well founded. I may say that I do not agree with the contention put forward on behalf of the defence, based on the dictum of Roe J. of the Patna High Court in the cases of Ragho Laya v. Emperor (1917) 18 Cr. L. J. 721. and Jiubodhan Bhutan v. Emperor (1917) 18 Cr. L. J. 663; (1917) Pat, 149. that there must always be an inquiry as to the motive of the accused in marking the confession---a dictum which has not been approved by the same Court in the cases of Emperor v. Dewan Kahar (1922) 24 Cr. L. J. 497. and Thibu Blogla v. Emperor (1923) 24 Cr. L. J. 649., and the Full Bench decision in Ghinua Oraon v. King-Emperor (1917) 3 P. L. J. 291., but it is clear to my mind that the questions put to the accused must be directed to elliciting facts which will enable the Magistrate to judge of the character of the confession that the accused is about to make, and not merely repeat some set formuloe which the accused can scarcely appreciate, and merely ask him whether his confession is voluntary, a question which he will answer in the affirmative the more readily the greater the influence, if any, that lit; may be labouring under.
Patna High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Queen-Empress vs Nilmadhub Mitter on 7 June, 1888

A Pull Bench of this Court, in the case of Queen-Empress v. Nilmadhub Mitter (1888) I. L. R. 15 Calc. 595., expressed grave doubts whether a non-compliance with the provisions of Section 164 read with Section 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code, could be cured under the provisions of Section 533 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not profitable to enter upon a discussion of this question as I am of opinion that Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in spite of the alteration that it has undergone by the amendment introduced by Act XVIII of 1923, does not apply to the confessions recorded in the present case. Sub-section 2 of Section 1 of the Code enacts that nothing contained in the Code, in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, shall apply to the police in the town of Calcutta.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Jiubodhan Bhuian vs Emperor on 28 February, 1917

19. Similar observations apply to this memorandum as have been made with regard to the memorandum of the 14th, and further it is open to this objection that it directs the accused to make the statement voluntarily. The Magistrate, in my opinion, wholly misunderstood his function in advising the accused as he seems to have done. An opinion, formed by the Magistrate upon materials, such as are disclosed by the record that he made, and I do not know what other materials he may or may not have elicited in the course of his conversations with the accused,---is not such as I would be justified in acting upon as well founded. I may say that I do not agree with the contention put forward on behalf of the defence, based on the dictum of Roe J. of the Patna High Court in the cases of Ragho Laya v. Emperor (1917) 18 Cr. L. J. 721. and Jiubodhan Bhutan v. Emperor (1917) 18 Cr. L. J. 663; (1917) Pat, 149. that there must always be an inquiry as to the motive of the accused in marking the confession---a dictum which has not been approved by the same Court in the cases of Emperor v. Dewan Kahar (1922) 24 Cr. L. J. 497. and Thibu Blogla v. Emperor (1923) 24 Cr. L. J. 649., and the Full Bench decision in Ghinua Oraon v. King-Emperor (1917) 3 P. L. J. 291., but it is clear to my mind that the questions put to the accused must be directed to elliciting facts which will enable the Magistrate to judge of the character of the confession that the accused is about to make, and not merely repeat some set formuloe which the accused can scarcely appreciate, and merely ask him whether his confession is voluntary, a question which he will answer in the affirmative the more readily the greater the influence, if any, that lit; may be labouring under.
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Abbas Peada And Anr. vs Queen-Empress on 5 April, 1898

Not to speak of such important pieces of evidence as confessions, even with regard to evidence of much less important character which might suggest criminality or guilty knowledge on the part of the accused, the necessity on the part of the Judge to bear-in mind the provisions of Section 298 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been emphasized in the case of Abbas Peada v. Queen-Empress (1898) I. L. R. 25 Calc. 736.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 Next