Takru, J. - (1.) THE following question has come up before this Full Bench on a reference by Verma and Gupta, JJ. "Whether a confession recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the police had completed its investigation and submitted a charge-sheet, but before the Magisterial enquiry has commenced, is inadmissible in evidence."
(2.) THE reference was necessitated as in the view of those learned Judges the decision in Ram Singh v. State, 1958 All LJ 660: (AIR 1959 All 518), and the cases on which it was based, required reconsideration. The facts giving rise to this reference are not in dispute, and, in so far as they are material for our purposes, are as follows: On the 8th of April 1964, the police submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 I. P. C. treating him as an absconcler. The appellant was subsequently arrested at Malda in West Bengal on the 3rd of May 1964, and his confession was recorded by a First Class Magistrate there on the 5th of May 1964. The enquiry before the committing Court was registered on the 25th of May 1964, which, for the purposes of this case, I shall assume as the date of the commencement of the enquiry. It appears that the confession was received in evidence and the appellant's conviction was, to a large extent, based upon it. Accordingly the learned counsel for the appellant, relying upon the decision in 1958 All LJ 660: (AIR 1959 All 518), contended before the Division Bench that, as the said confession was recorded after the investigation of the case was over and the police had submitted a charge-sheet, it was inadmissible in evidence. That decision no doubt supports the aforesaid contention. We have, therefore, been called upon to decide whether the aforesaid decision can be held to lay down good law. I shall begin my discussion with an examination of the relevant provision of law, bearing upon this matter, namely Section 164, Cr. P. C. That section, in so far as it is material for the present enquiry, reads thus:-- "164 (1)..... any Magistrate of the first class..... may, if he is not a police officer, record any statement or confession made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter..... or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial."
(3.) A bare reading of the aforesaid subsection shows that it invests every Magistrate of the first class with the power to record any confession made to him in the course of an investigation under that Chapter or at any time afterwards but before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. The words 'at any time afterwards clearly show that if the confession was not made in the course of investigation then it can be made any time afterwards but before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. Thus, according to this sub-section the latest point of time upto which a confession can be recorded is the 'commencement of the inquiry' or 'the trial' as the case may be. To hold that this power comes to an end as soon as the investigation is completed and a charge-sheet submitted is to make the expression 'or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial' otiose. It is a well-established rule of construction, that every word in a Statute must be given its ordinary meaning, unless, the doing so, would result in some anomaly, repugnancy, or conflict with the other provisions, or the avowed object, of that Statute. As the interpretation put by me on this sub-section does not have any of the aforesaid effects, I am not prepared to put a construction on it which would have the effect of rendering an entire (sic) used therein as superfluous and meaningless. I shall now proceed to examine the authorities bearing upon this question. The earliest case is that of State v. Ram Autar Chaudhry, AIR 1955 All 138. In this case the confession was recorded after the preliminary inquiry against the accused had commenced, and it was in this context that the Bench consisting of Raghubar Dayal and James, JJ. held that: "We are therefore of opinion that a Magistrate could not have recorded the confession of Budhoo purporting to exercise the powers conferred on him under Section 164 Cr. P. G. and that a confession so recorded by him could not be taken in evidence.";