SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Bald confession hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act – Pb&Hry High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


It has been observed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that if 'any person concerned', makes a bald confessional statement, it would be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and/or if any person concerned, during the course of his custodial interrogation, also makes a bald statement, thereupon his bald confession, would be also hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Section 439 Cr.P.C, Sections 21,22 ,67, 29 and 37 NDPS Act , Section 25, 27 Evidence Act – Bail – Facts -heavy recovery of Drug from one accused Annu – made a disclosure statement revealed purchased the contraband  from accused Feroz Ahmed - made a disclosure statement - purchased the contraband from one Anuj Kumar – from Anuj Kumar police recovered -13 boxes of TRAMADOL HYDROCHLORIDE CAPSULES containing 3900 capsules, and, 19 boxes of alprazolam tablets containing 11400 tablets - made a disclosure statement - applicant Amit Khurana supplier of the  psychotropic substance, as became recovered from his alleged conscious and exclusive possession – applicant arrested on 26.05.2021 – Bail filed.

Officers investigating offences are police officers within  Indian Evidence Act - confessional statements barred - cannot be taken into account for convicting any accused under the NDPS Act - bar created against the inadmissibility – lifted – when discovered in consequence of information received - disclosure statement, is to be accompanied by further corroborative evidence – only a bald confessional statement hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act..

Further observed by Pb & Hry. High Court A circumspect analysis of the provisions carried in Section 27 of the Act (supra), makes a clear display that, when in pursuance to a confession or information received from an accused, especially during the course of his custodial interrogation, by a police officer, and, when thereafter the fact confessed or the information revealed by such accused person, to the police officer concerned, becomes discovered, thereupon the bar created against the inadmissibility of a bald confessional statement, as made to a police officer, by an accused, becomes lifted, or became relieved, and/or, in other words, the fact discovered in pursuance to a confessional statement, as made by an accused, rather during the course of his custodial interrogation, by the investigating officer, becomes both, admissible as well as relevant.

Bail Dismissed

D.D: 21.12.2021

AMIT KHURANA Versus STATE OF HARYANA

Latest Legal News