Case Note & Summary
(1) Background — This criminal appeal by special leave arose from a murder case in which the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the acquittal of three respondents by the Allahabad High Court. The sole question before the Supreme Court concerned the admissibility of oral evidence of confessions allegedly made to a Magistrate. (2) Facts — On March 20, 1959, a shopkeeper was murdered by gunshot. Seven persons, including the three respondents, were prosecuted. The Additional Sessions Judge of Bijnor convicted one respondent under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death, and convicted the other two respondents for abetment under Section 302 read with Sections 120B, 109 and 114 IPC, sentencing one to death and the other to life imprisonment; the remaining accused were acquitted. The respondents appealed, the State appealed against acquittals, and the High Court had a reference for confirmation of death sentences. The High Court allowed the respondents' appeals, dismissed the State's appeal and rejected the reference, holding the oral confession evidence inadmissible. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted leave limited to the three respondents. The only evidence against the respondents was the oral testimony of a second class Magistrate, Mr. Dixit, about confessions purportedly recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The prosecution could not prove that the Magistrate had been specially empowered by the State Government to record confessions under Section 164. The trial court had admitted the oral evidence, distinguishing Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, but the High Court held it inadmissible. (3) Legal Issues — The core legal issue was whether oral evidence of a confession recorded by a Magistrate not specially empowered under Section 164(1) CrPC is admissible; whether the principle of Taylor v. Taylor and Nazir Ahmed applies to want of authority, not merely procedural non-compliance; and whether Sections 533 CrPC or 74, 80 and 159 Evidence Act permit such proof. (4) Arguments — The State argued that Nazir Ahmed's case applied only to a competent Magistrate who failed to follow procedure, and that where the Magistrate lacked authority, the confession was not recorded under Section 164, so oral evidence should be admissible, relying on Ashrafi v. State. The respondents contended that the statutory power must be exercised only by the designated officers in the prescribed manner, and that an unauthorized Magistrate's oral testimony was barred; the record itself could not be used under Sections 74 and 80 Evidence Act. (5) Court's Analysis — The Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule in Taylor v. Taylor that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all, and other methods are forbidden. Applying this to Section 164 CrPC, the Court held that a Magistrate recording a confession is bound to follow the procedure laid down in Sections 164 and 364. The Court further held that when a statute confers a power on certain judicial officers, only those officers can exercise it; since the second class Magistrate was not specially empowered, he had no authority to record the confession. The decision in Nazir Ahmed was not limited to procedural non-compliance but covered the present case of absence of authority. The Court observed that Section 533 CrPC was not argued to make oral evidence admissible, and it could not cure the fundamental defect of want of authority. It distinguished Ashraf v. State, Ram Sanchi v. State and Ghulam Hussain v. King. (6) Decision — The Supreme Court held that the confession had not been recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the record could not be put in evidence under Sections 74 and 80 of the Evidence Act. Oral evidence of the Magistrate to prove the confession was inadmissible. As that evidence was the only evidence against the respondents, the High Court's acquittal was upheld and the State's appeal stood dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Recording of Confession - Statutory Power Must Be Exercised in Prescribed Manner - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 164, 364 - Where a statute confers a power to do an act and lays down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it accessorily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. This principle applies to judicial officers making a record under Section 164 CrPC; a Magistrate who does not comply with the prescribed procedure cannot give oral evidence of the confession. Held that oral evidence of confession recorded by a Magistrate not following Sections 164 and 364 CrPC is inadmissible. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Evidence - Admissibility of Oral Evidence - Confession Recorded by Unauthorized Magistrate - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 74, 80, 159; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 164 - A confession recorded by a second class magistrate not specially empowered under Section 164(1) CrPC is not a public document provable under Sections 74 and 80 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution's attempt to prove the confession through the Magistrate's oral testimony, using the record merely to refresh memory under Section 159, was not permissible. Held that the confession could not be proved at all because the Magistrate lacked authority. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Criminal Procedure - Section 533 CrPC - Curing Irregularities - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 533 - Section 533 applies to non-compliance with procedural provisions by a Magistrate recording a confession, not to absence of authority to record. Since the Magistrate was not empowered under Section 164(1), the section could not render the oral evidence admissible. The Court noted that Section 533 was not argued to have any operation in making oral evidence admissible, and therefore it was not necessary to consider its effect. Held that Section 533 does not cure the fundamental defect of want of authority. (Paras Not mentioned) D) Precedent - Stare Decisis - Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor - Principle Applied to Unauthorized Magistrate - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 164 - The principle of Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, which held that a Magistrate of the first class recording a confession under Section 164 without following procedure cannot give oral evidence, also covers a case where the Magistrate was a second class magistrate not specially empowered. When a statute confers a power on certain judicial officers, that power can obviously be exercised only by those officers and no other officer can exercise it. Cases distinguished: Ashraf v. State, Ram Sanchi v. State, Ghulam Hussain v. King. Held that the oral evidence was inadmissible. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether oral evidence of a Magistrate regarding confessions purported to be recorded under Section 164 CrPC is admissible when the Magistrate was a second class magistrate not specially empowered under Section 164(1) CrPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the confession had not been recorded under Section 164 CrPC because the Magistrate was not specially empowered; the record could not be put in evidence under Sections 74 and 80 Evidence Act. Oral evidence of the Magistrate to prove the confession was also inadmissible. As that was the only evidence against the respondents, the High Court's acquittal was upheld, and the State's appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- Statutory power must be exercised only in manner prescribed
- other methods forbidden
- oral evidence of confession recorded by Magistrate not empowered under Section 164 CrPC inadmissible
- Section 164 CrPC safeguards mandatory
- Section 533 CrPC does not cure oral evidence admissibility
- Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor followed
