The Proprietor, St. George Gas Agency vs Rahul, S/O S.Prabhakaran on 31 March, 2011
In such circumstances, whatever was stated by the accused in
presence of these witnesses is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C and therefore cannot be
FIR No. 897/2020
St. vs. Rahul
14
relied upon in evidence. On this point, reference is drawn from judgment of Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in STATE Versus BASHIR AHMED AND OTHERS, 23 (1983)
DELHI LAW TIMES 486 DELHI HIGH COURT which was a case under Immoral
Traffic Prevention Act it was held that
" in the present case the solicitation made by the accused to the police officer
was not a confession made to him of an offence but was an offence committed
in relation to a person who happened to be a police officer. Confession is
always of past events. It cannot, therefore, be said that whatever was said by
the accused to the police officer concerned was a confession, and inadmissible
under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.