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.

MafizuddIn Khan Vs. Emperor

MafizuddIn Khan vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Nov 30, 1920
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/885617

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.

Evidence (Act I of 1872), Section 80 - Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 110--Confession in dacoity case, admissibility of, against co-accused in proceedings under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

MafizuddIn Khan

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Cases Referred
Amirulla Pramanik v. Emperor
Reported In
AIR1921Cal557,61Ind.Cas.793

Excerpt

evidence (act i of 1872), section 80 - criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 110--confession in dacoity case, admissibility of, against co-accused in proceedings under section 110, criminal procedure code. - .....which, we are informed, was a dacoity case. in my judgment, that confession was not admissible in the section 110 procedings. it would have been, no doubt, admissible in the dacoity case not only against mukti but also against mafiz, under section 30 of the indian evidence act. bat section 30 does not make that confession of makti in the dacoity case admissible in these section 110 proceedings against mafiz. that has already been decided by this court in amirulla pramanik v. emperor 49 ind. cas. 649 : 22 c.w.n. 408 : 20 cr.l.j. 201.3. the result is, that this rule must be made absolute, and the case must be remitted to the additional district magistrate of the lower appellate court for further investigation, upon the record as it stands. we wish to make it clear that the witnesses should not be re-called and examined and the lower appellate court will come to its decision upon perusal of the record as it stands exclusive, of course, of the confession, which we lave held to be inadmissible.4. the accused will be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the lower appellate court. we ask the lower appellate court to ex-pedite the re-hearing of the matter as much as possible.

Full Judgment

1. This Rue has been granted on the second ground in the petition which was as follows: ' For that the trial has been vitiated by the fast that the Trial Court admitted evidence of case diaries, confessions, and statements of persons who have not been examined, etc., which are all inadmissible in evidence.' The learned Vakil who appeared in support of the Rule has told us that he does not rely upon the alleged improper admission of evidence of case-diaries or the statement of persons who have not been examined and, we have, therefore, to deal with the admission of confession only.

2. Now, it appears that the confession of a man sailed Mukti was pat in evidence. Mukti was one of the persons involved in the Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, case. But the confession which is alleged to have been made was made when he (Makti) and Mafiz, the present petitioner, were co accused in another ease, which, we are informed, was a dacoity case. In my judgment, that confession was not admissible in the Section 110 procedings. It would have been, no doubt, admissible in the dacoity case not only against Mukti but also against Mafiz, under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. Bat Section 30 does not make that confession of Makti in the dacoity case admissible in these Section 110 proceedings against Mafiz. That has already been decided by this Court in Amirulla Pramanik v. Emperor 49 Ind. Cas. 649 : 22 C.W.N. 408 : 20 Cr.L.J. 201.

3. The result is, that this Rule must be made absolute, and the case must be remitted to the Additional district Magistrate of the lower Appellate Court for further investigation, upon the record as it stands. We wish to make it clear that the witnesses should not be re-called and examined and the lower Appellate Court will come to its decision upon perusal of the record as it stands exclusive, of course, of the confession, which we Lave held to be inadmissible.

4. The accused will be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the lower Appellate Court. We ask the lower Appellate Court to ex-pedite the re-hearing of the matter as much as possible.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial