- (1.)THE State has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. against the order dated 3. 10. 1982, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parbatsa. whereby the learned Magistrate held that the recovery memo being signed by the accused, is inadmissible in evidence, as amounts to confession made by the accused to a police officer.
(2.)THE non-petitioner Lichman was prosecuted for the offence under Section 4/2, Rajasthan Prohibition Act. On an information by a Mukhbir, the S. H. O. Police Station, Pilwa, along with the police party laid an ambush and intercepted the accused, who was proceeding on a Motor Cycle RJZ 8267. On checking, it was found that on the rear seat of the Motor Cycle there was a black rubber tube filled with liquor. It was found that it was an illicit liquor containing about 20 bottles. The liquor was seized in the presence of Motbirs Bhanwar Lai and Kana Ram and a recovery memo was prepared. Besides the Motbirs, the recovery memo was also got signed by the accused. During the course of evidence an objection was raised on behalf of the accused that the recovery memo is inadmissible in evidence under Section 25, Evidence Act. The learned Magistrate heard the arguments and held that the same is inadmissible in evidence, as it amounts to confession made by the accused to the S. H. O. The State has now submitted this petition challenging the order of the learned Magistrate.
(3.)I have heard Shri Dev Lal Vyas, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the non-petitioner despite service of notice.