KAKANA RAMANA REDDY Vs. STATE
LAWS(MAD)-1952-4-27
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on April 23,1952

Kakana Ramana Reddy Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) CRIMINAL Appeals Nos. 229 and 232 of 1951 are appeals by A. 3 and A. 5 who were found guilty on the unanimous verdict of Jury at the Madras Criminal Sessions under Sections 120B, 489C and 489D I.P.C. A. 3 was in addition found guilty under Section 489 -A, I.P.C. They were each sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment by Panchapakesa Aiyar J.
(2.) CRL . Ap. No. 238 of 1951 is an appeal by the 6th accused, who was found guilty on a majority jury verdict of 8 : 1 only under Section 489C IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty as regards the 6th accused on the count under Section 120 -B IPC. The State appeals against his acquittal on this count in Crl. Ap. 626 of 1951. It may be mentioned that there were six accused charged with conspiracy to counterfeit 100 rupee currency notes. A. 1 who was convicted on four counts on the unanimous verdict of the jury and sentenced to concurrent sentences of five years has not appealed. A. 2 and A. 4 were acquitted.
(3.) THE appeals by A. 3 and A. 5 which wore first filed were admitted by a Bench of which one of us (Mack J.) was a member under Section 411 -A l(a) Crl. P.C. on a point of law. This related to the admissibility of confessions recorded by a Presidency Magistrate, Mr. Ernest from A. 1 and A. 3. The main objection was taken to the admissibility of A 3's confession Ex. P. 66(b) recorded by Mr. Ernest on 3 -2 -1950 and continued on 4 -2 -1950. It was alleged that although Mr. Ernest gave A. 3 all the necessary warnings in question form on 3 -2 -1950 before he started recording the confession, he did not administer these same warnings again before he continued recording the latter portion of the confession on 4 -2 -1950. The short point of law is whether Section 164 Crl. P.C. requires a Magistrate to give such warnings again on the second day when the confession could not be completed the previous day, and whether this constitutes an omission, which would render the confession inadmissible in evidence as not having been voluntarily made.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.