https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175116 Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act excludes a confession only when inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority is shown to have caused it; on the facts, the Chief Secretary's remark was not treated as such a threat, so the confession remained admissible. A retracted confession is not barred in law, but it should ordinarily be corroborated in material particulars; independent evidence and an official entry were found to supply sufficient corroboration. Theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code is complete when movable property is dishonestly moved out of another's possession without consent, even if return is intended later; unauthorized taking of the file satisfied that definition. en-us Mon, 22 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Nov 2015 16:31:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175116 Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act excludes a confession only when inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority is shown to have caused it; on the facts, the Chief Secretary's remark was not treated as such a threat, so the confession remained admissible. A retracted confession is not barred in law, but it should ordinarily be corroborated in material particulars; independent evidence and an official entry were found to supply sufficient corroboration. Theft under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code is complete when movable property is dishonestly moved out of another's possession without consent, even if return is intended later; unauthorized taking of the file satisfied that definition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 22 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175116