Emperor Vs. Dhanka Amra - Court Judgment
|Case Number||Criminal Reference No. 8 of 1914|
|Judge||Heaton and ;Shah, J.|
|Reported in||AIR1914Bom41; (1914)16BOMLR261; 24Ind.Cas.169|
.....the confession.;a confession made by an accused before a magistrate in a native state cannot be admitted into evidence under section 80 of the indian evidence act, 1872. the magistrate recording the confession must be examined to prove the confession before it can be used as evidence. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the..........by mr. dolatram motiram, first class magistrate of palitana state. those statements have been admitted in evidence and, as we think, wrongly admitted. they have been dealt with as if section 80 of the evidence act applied to them. we do not think section 80 does apply to them, because, we think, section 80 refers only to those officers, judges and magistrates who come under clause 7 of section 57 of the evidence act, that is to say, officers whose appointments and so forth are notified in the official gazette and of whose signatures and offices the court will take the judicial cognizance. it is necessary, therefore, that this magistrate should be called and examined, and we direct that the additional sessions judge of ahmedabad do take the necessary evidence in the matter.2. when.....
1. In this case the conclusion that we have come to is that we ought to have before us, so that we can deal with them as evidence, the statements of the two accused recorded by Mr. Dolatram Motiram, First Class Magistrate of Palitana State. Those statements have been admitted in evidence and, as we think, wrongly admitted. They have been dealt with as if Section 80 of the Evidence Act applied to them. We do not think Section 80 does apply to them, because, we think, Section 80 refers only to those Officers, Judges and Magistrates who come under Clause 7 of Section 57 of the Evidence Act, that is to say, officers whose appointments and so forth are notified in the official Gazette and of whose signatures and offices the Court will take the judicial cognizance. It is necessary, therefore, that this Magistrate should be called and examined, and we direct that the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad do take the necessary evidence in the matter.
2. When the Magistrate of Palitana has appeared and deposed, it would appear on the authority of the case of Queen-Empress v. Nagla Kala I.L.R. (1896) Bom. 285 that the statements themselves, that is the written papers, may be used as evidence, and when all this has been done, we shall be and not until then shall we be, in a position properly to deal with and dispose of this case.
3. The evidence, when taken, must be certified to this Court, and should be taken and certified as soon as possible.