The Raja Ram Jaiswal along with five other people Debendra
Prasad Singh, Paresh Nath Prasad Singh and Rabindra Prasad Singh, the car were
traveling in a car belonging to the Raja Ram Jaiswal's brother Radhey Shyam one
of whom was driving the Car. The car was
stopped by the Excise Inspector R.P. Sinha on the Bayley Road, near the New
Secretariat, Patna who conducted a search of the car and recovered five bundles
of Ganja, four from the luggage boot and one from the leg space in front of the
seat of the car.
Such a bunch of keys marked series was recovered from the pocket of the Raja Ram a bundle containing 35 seers of ganja was found in the leg space in front of the rear seat but the weight of the bundle is given as 35 seers and below it weights of four other bundles are mentioned. They are 35 seers, 26 seers, 18 seers and 6 seers as well as another bunch of keys marked series was recovered from the possession of 'the driver Jagdish Shah that every key of series could open the lock of the luggage boot as well as two keys of series could also open the lock. The boot could be opened with the keys in the possession of the Raja Ram as well as one of the keys in the possession of the driver. The Raja Ram made a confession to the Excise Inspector admitting his guilt. At the trial of the Raja Ram along with the other persons he pleaded an alibi and pleaded innocence. The Raja Ram's defence was that he was not traveling in the car at the relevant moment and that he was at that time in the house of Kanhai Singh which was arrested by the Excise Inspector. He is that after his arrest R. Sinha and other officers of the Excise Department took him in a jeep, subjected him to threats and abuses, assaulted him and eventually took his signature on a blank paper. The Sessions Court, Patna, acquitted all the other accused but convicted the appellant under s. 47 (a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000. The Penalty Liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or to fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or too both for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, possession, sale, etc.
On appeal the High Court affirmed this conviction and sentence. The Raja Ram there upon appealed to this Court with special leave. It was contended that the confessional statement upon which reliance was placed by the High Court as supporting the evidence of Debendra Prasad Singh, Paresh Nath Prasad Singh and Rabindra Prasad Singh, were inadmissible and if this statement was put aside the evidence of these prosecution witnesses was insufficient in law to sustain the conviction of the appellant. In objecting to the admissibility of the statement reliance was placed on Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in as much as it was recorded by the Inspector of Excise while he was investigating into an excise offence under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Held the words, "Police Officer in Section 25 of the Evidence Act are not to be construed in a narrow way but have to be construed in a wide and popular sense. Those words are not to be construed in so wide a sense as to include persons on whom only some of the powers exercised by the police are conferred. It rather enjoins upon a police officer not to offer or make or cause to be offered or made, any such inducement, threat or promise as is mentioned in the Indian Evidence Act, section 24, and not to prevent any person from making a voluntary statement in the course of an investigation Section 164, again, deals with the recording of statements and confessions by Magistrates during the investigation under that Chapter, as well as can at best be empower by implication that these Excise Officers can send a confessing Raja Ram for the recording of confession to a Magistrate. In exercise of the powers under Section 165, Criminal Procedure Code, the Excise Officer can search in circumstances a place for a thing which may be found useful for the investigation as well as in view of Section 166 Criminal Procedure Code as well as he can require any other Excise Officer or police officer to a cause search to be made. The High Court as supporting the evidence of Debendra Prasad Singh, Paresh Nath Prasad Singh and Rabindra Prasad Singh is attacked as being inadmissible in evidence as well as supposed that this statement is put aside the evidence of the three witnesses on whom reliance has been placed by the High Court is insufficient in law to sustain the conviction of the Raja Ram under Section 47 (a) of the Excise Act.
Post a Comment