Patric s/o Taumbe v. R., Crim. App. 422-D-67; 19/7/67; Georges, C. J.

Patric s/o Taumbe v. R., Crim. App. 422-D-67; 19/7/67; Georges, C. J.

Accused was convicted of theft by public servant. Convicting evidence for the prosecution, including accused ’s including accused ’s was introduced. However, another confession before a police officer and certain hearsay evidence was also introduced. The trial magistrate called on witness on his own initiative.

            Held: (1) The confession to the police officer was inadmissible under section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court stated, obiter: that the confession would also be inadmissible under the new Evidence Act and that it is the duty of the police as well as the magistrate to see that such confessions are not proffered.(2) A magistrate normally should call a witness only if he has been refused. Only if the testimony of the witness is vital to the case should the court exercise its undoubted power to call him.(3) Although there were irregularities at the trial a conviction would inevitably have followed on the basis of the admissible evidence alone. For that reason, the conviction was upheld.