Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Petition of Munshi Sheikh and ors. and Vs. Munshi Sheikh and ors.

In Re: Petition of Munshi Sheikh and ors. and ;The Empress vs Munshi Sheikh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 15, 1882
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/857083

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Confession of an accused person - Examination of the accused--Question and answer--Recording examination--Statement of accused-Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 346. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Petition of Munshi Sheikh and ors. and ;The Empress

Respondent

Munshi Sheikh and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
(1882)ILR8Cal616

Excerpt

confession of an accused person - examination of the accused--question and answer--recording examination--statement of accused-criminal procedure code (act x of 1872), section 346. - .....had resulted in any prejudice to the prisoners, we should of course deem it necessary to direct a new trial. but there is nothing from which we can draw this inference; and we, therefore, think that, having regard to the concluding paragraph of section 346,1 we are not at liberty to hold that there has been a misdirection, merely because the judge allowed these confessions to go to the jury.2. with regard to the accused munshi sheikh, the question does not arise, because the judge told the jury that, as far as he was concerned, they must, before convicting him, satisfy themselves that there was sufficient evidence to justify his conviction independent of the confession.3. we think, therefore, that, as far as the matter of the irregularity of the mode of recording the confessions goes, the conviction must be upheld.1[section 346: whenever an accused person is examined, the whole of such examination, including every question put to him and every answer given by him, shall be recorded in full, and shall be shown or read to him, and he shall be at liberty to explain or add to his answers.examination of accused how recorded.when the whole is made conformable to what he declares is the truth, the examination shall be attested by the signature of the magistrate or sessions judge, who shall certify under his own hand that it was taken in his presence and in his hearing, and contains accurately the whole of the statement made by the accused person.in cases in which the examination of the accused person is not recorded by the magistrate or sessions judge himself, he shall be bound, as the examination proceeds, to make a memorandum thereof in the vernacular of the district, or in english, if he is sufficiently acquainted with that language; and such memorandum shall be written and signed by the magistrate or sessions judge with his own hand, and shall be annexed to the record. if the magistrate or sessions judge is precluded from making a memorandum as above required, he.....

Full Judgment

Cunningham, J.

1. We are of opinion that there has been no misdirection in this case. The main ground urged before us in appeal is, that the confessions of two of the accused were recorded in a simple narrative form instead of in the shape of questions and answers. If we could infer from the character of the confessions or from the circumstances of the case, that this mode of recording the confessions had resulted in any prejudice to the prisoners, we should of course deem it necessary to direct a new trial. But there is nothing from which we can draw this inference; and we, therefore, think that, having regard to the concluding paragraph of Section 346,1 we are not at liberty to hold that there has been a misdirection, merely because the Judge allowed these confessions to go to the jury.

2. With regard to the accused Munshi Sheikh, the question does not arise, because the Judge told the jury that, as far as he was concerned, they must, before convicting him, satisfy themselves that there was sufficient evidence to justify his conviction independent of the confession.

3. We think, therefore, that, as far as the matter of the irregularity of the mode of recording the confessions goes, the conviction must be upheld.

1[Section 346: Whenever an accused person is examined, the whole of such examination, including every question put to him and every answer given by him, shall be recorded in full, and shall be shown or read to him, and he shall be at liberty to explain or add to his answers.

Examination of accused how recorded.

When the whole is made conformable to what he declares is the truth, the examination shall be attested by the signature of the Magistrate or Sessions Judge, who shall certify under his own hand that it was taken in his presence and in his hearing, and contains accurately the whole of the statement made by the accused person.

In cases in which the examination of the accused person is not recorded by the Magistrate or Sessions Judge himself, he shall be bound, as the examination proceeds, to make a memorandum thereof in the vernacular of the district, or in English, if he is sufficiently acquainted with that language; and such memorandum shall be written and signed by the Magistrate or Sessions Judge with his own hand, and shall be annexed to the record. If the Magistrate or Sessions Judge is precluded from making a memorandum as above required, he shall record the reason of his inability to do so.

The accused person shall sign or attest by his mark such record.

If the examination be taken in the course of a preliminary inquiry, and the Court of Session find that the provisions of this section have not been fully complied with, it shall take evidence that the prisoner duly made the statement recorded: Provided that if the error does not prejudice the prisoner, it shall not be deemed to affect the admissibility of the statement so recorded.]

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial