Empress Vs. Malka - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
code of criminal procedure (act x of 1872), section 122--power of a magistrate to record a statement of a person not accused of an offence. - section 31(4) (since repealed) :[tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu, jj] jurisdiction of high court - respondent, a government company, chartered appellants vessel to carry rock phosphate from togo to west coast india - dispute arose between parties - under agreement, respondent had chosen mumbai as port of delivery vessel carrying rock phosphate was delivered at port of bombay - application filed by respondent earlier before delhi high court for appointment of certain individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of jurisdiction. - section 122 of the code of criminal procedure clearly contemplates two distinct cases:kemball, j.1. the court concurs with the district magistrate in thinking that mr. anding's view is wrong. it, therefore, annuls his order of discharge, and directs that the trial of malka be proceeded with and disposed of according to law. section 122 of the code of criminal procedure clearly contemplates two distinct cases: one is that of a person coming forward to state what he knows; the other is that of a person accused by a police officer of an offence who comes forward to confess his guilt. with regard to the former, the section provides that the statement made by him shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for recording evidence--that is to say, under section 331 of the code of criminal procedure, on oath or affirmation; whereas in the case of an accused person confessing to an offence of which he is accused, the code, by section 345, enacts that neither oath nor affirmation shall be administered to him.