TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for possession of a false weight could stand when the prosecution had not proved knowledge of falsity at the close of its evidence and the gap was filled only by the accused's statement. (ii) Whether the accused's statement to the police was inadmissible as a confession under the Indian Evidence Act.
Issue (i): Whether the conviction for possession of a false weight could stand when the prosecution had not proved knowledge of falsity at the close of its evidence and the gap was filled only by the accused's statement.
Analysis: The prosecution was required to prove not merely possession of the article but also that the accused knew it to be false and intended fraudulent use. At the close of the prosecution evidence, that essential element was absent, so the accused ought to have been discharged. The defect could not properly be cured by relying on the accused's own statement made later in the proceedings to supply an ingredient that the prosecution itself had failed to prove.
Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the accused's statement to the police was inadmissible as a confession under the Indian Evidence Act.
Analysis: The statement attributed to the accused was treated as an admission of conduct amounting to guilt, not as a mere statement of fact. A communication to the police is a confession if it is relied upon by the prosecution as true and incriminating. Section 25 excludes confessions made to a police officer, and that bar applies even if the confession relates to an offence different from the one then under investigation.
Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained because the prosecution had failed to establish an essential ingredient of the offence and had also relied on an inadmissible police confession.
Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot rest on an essential ingredient first supplied by the accused's own statement when the prosecution evidence is otherwise incomplete, and any confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 even if it concerns a different offence.
TaxTMI 
