Published on: 28 July 2023 at 09:42 IST
Court: Privy Council
Citation: Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor (1936)
Honourable Privy Council has held that the statements under the aegis of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to allow evidence to be put in a form in which it can prove itself under Section 74 read with Section 80 of the Evidence Act. It is held that Magistrate can depose to a confession made by an accused so long as it was not induced by a threat or promise, without affirmatively satisfying himself that it was made voluntarily and without showing or reading to the accused.
On the matter of construction ss. 164 and 364 must be looked at and construed together, and it would be an unnatural construction to hold that any other procedure was permitted than that which is laid down with such minute particularity in the sections themselves. Upon the construction adopted by the Crown, the only effect of s. 164 is to allow evidence to be put in a form in which it can prove itself under ss. 74 and 80 of the Evidence Act.
Their Lordships are satisfied that the scope and extent of the section is far other than this, and that it is a section conferring powers on magistrates and delimiting them. It is also to be observed that, if the construction contended for by the Crown be correct, all the precautions and safeguards laid down by ss. 164 and 364 would be of such trifling value as to be almost idle. Any magistrate of any rank could depose to a confession made by an accused so long as it was not induced by a threat or promise, without affirmatively satisfying himself that it was made voluntarily and without showing or reading to the accused any version of what he was supposed to have said or asking for the confession to be vouched by any signature.
The range of magisterial confessions would be so enlarged by this process that the provisions of s. 164 would almost inevitably be widely disregarded in the same manner as they were disregarded in the present case.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
