COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NEW DELHI versus NARENDER SINGH

Citation: [2006] 3 S.C.R. 872 · Decided: 05-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NEW DELHI 
v. 
NARENDER SINGH 
APRIL 5, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872--Section 25-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-
Section 162-Dismissa/ from service-Police constable arrested in connection 
C with offence confessing his involvement-Criminal case resulting in his 
discharge as apart from confession there was no other material on record-
ln disciplinary proceedings, dismissal from service-Challenge to this allowed 
by High Court holding that confession was neither admissible in view of 
Section 25 of Act of 1872 and Section 162 of Code of 1973 nor was it 
proved-On appeal held: As embargoes of Section 25 of Act of 1872 and 
D Section 162 of Code of 1973 are not app/icuhle to department proceedings, 
evidence of confession was admissible therein-In facts of case, us the 
confession was found to be in an identification memo signed by officer who 
prepared it; it was neither retracted from nor any complaint made to higher 
authorities that it was extracted by force or undue influence, and correctness 
E of statement contained in it was not disputed; it was held to be proved in 
accordance with law-Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) 
Rules, I 987 found inapplicable as the constable was not tried and acquitted 
by a criminal court. 
Respondent was enrolled as constable in Delhi Police. He was arrested 
p in connection with an offence and confessed his involvement therein. In 
criminal case arising therefrom he was discharged as apart from confession 
of accused, there was no other materials on record. However, in disciplinary 
proceedings, he was dismissed from service. Central Administrative Tribunal 
allowed his original petition against this holding that his confession was not 
proved and it was inadmissible in view of Section 25 of Evidence Act, 1872 
G and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. High Court upheld 
this view. Hence the present appeal. 
H 
Respondent contended that (i) in a disciplinary proceeding even if the 
provisions of Section 26 of the Evidence Act are not per se applicable, the 
872 
-
COMMR. OF POLICE, NEW DELHI v. NA RENDER SINGH 
873 
principles analogous thereto would be applicable as such confession in police A 
custody are ordinarily extracted by force (ii) in view of the fact that the 
respondent was discharged from the criminal case, having regard to Rule 12 
of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, the order of 
punishment was not sustainable. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: I.I. The confession admittedly was made by the respondent while 
in police custody. It appears that a date was put below the signature of the 
officer who prepared the identification memo containing the confession of the 
respondent. It is not in dispute that a Inspector was one of the witnesses to 
the said document. [879-B, El 
· 
C 
1.2. The fact that the respondent as an accused in the aforementioned 
case made a confession has not been disputed. He had not retracted from it. 
He did not make any complaint to the higher .authorities that the same was 
extracted from him by force or undue influence. [ 880-GJ 
1.3. The correctness or otherwise of the statement contained in 
confession has also not been disputed. 
1.4. The Tribunal was, therefore, not correct its view that the confession 
made by the respondent had not been proved in accordance with law. 
D 
[880-G,H] E 
2. So far the evidentiary value of the said confession is concerned, 
Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure provide for an embargo as regard admissibility of a confession in 
a criminal trial. The said provisions have per se no application in a 
departmental proceeding. The Tribunal as also the High Court were, therefore, F 
not correct in arriving at tbe finding that the said confession was not 
admissible even in a departmental proceeding. [880-H; 881-A, F] 
Ku/dip Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors., [1996] 10 SCC 659; Depot 
Manager. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd Yousuf Miya and G 
Ors .. 11997) 2 SCC 699; La/it Popli v. Canara Bank and Ors., (2003] 3 SCC 
583; N. Rajarathinam v. State ofT.N. and Anr., [1996] 10 SCC 371; State of 
Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. Chitra Venkata Rao, (1975] 2 SCC 557 and State 
of Haryana and Anr. v. Rattan Singh, [1977] 2 SCC 491, relied on. 
3. Reliance placed by respondent on Rule 12 of the Delhi Police H 
874 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2006) 3

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.