RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 1098 · Decided: 05-03-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1098 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954] 
1954 
RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH AND ANOTHER 
March5. 
v. 
THE STATE OF VINDHYA PRADESH. 
[BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS 
and VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Proced11re (Act V of 1898), s. 164-Magistrate 
not recording statement of accused as required by the section-Whe-
ther competent to give oral evidence of such statement--Disapproval 
of the action of Police in entrapping the accused and providing the 
bribe-giver the instruments of offence. 
After the investigation into an offence has been started on the 
registration of the 
First 
Information Report by the Police, no 
statement n1ade ~y the accused to the Magistrate can be proved unless 
the statement has been recorded in accordance with the provisions 
of s. 164 of the 
Code of Criminal 
Procedure 
and therefore, it 
the non-confessional state1nent 
has not 
been recorded 
by the. 
Magistrate in the 
manner 
indicated in s. 
164, 
the 
Magis-
trate would not be competent to give oral evidence of such state-
ment having been made by the accused. 
Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor (A.LR. 1936 P. C. 253), Legal 
Remembrancer v. Lalit Mohan Singh Roy (I.L.R. 49 Cal. 167), 
Abdul Rahim and Others v. Emperor (26 Cr. L. J. 1279) and Karu 
Mansukh Gond v. Emperor (A.LR. 1937 Nag. 254) referred to. 
The conduct of the Police and the Additional District Magis-
trate in actively instigating the accused to commit 
the 
offence 
of which he was 
charged by 
furnishing him 
with the necessary 
materials (without which he could not have committed the offence), 
for the purpose of trapping him, was strongly disapproved. 
It is the duty of the police to prevent the crimes 
being 
committed. 
It is no part of their duty to provide the instruments 
of the offence. 
The observations of Mr. Justice P. B. Mukherji in the case 
of M. C. Mitra v. The State (A.LR. 1951 Cal. 524 at p. 528) con-
demning the practice of sending Magistrates as witnesses 
of Police 
trap endorsed because such practice makes a 
Magistrate a party 
or a limb of the Police during police investigation and undermines 
seriously the independence of the Magistrates 
and perverts 
their 
judicial outlook. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 7 of 1951. 
Appeal under article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution 
of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 10th 
March, 1951, of the Judicial Commissioner, Vmdhya 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1099 
Pradesh, 
Rewa 
in Criminal 
Appeal No. 81 of 1950 
arising out of the 
Judgment and Order dated the 26th 
July, 1950, of the Court of the Special Judge, Rewa, 
in 
Criminal Case No. 1 of 1949. 
Jai Gopal Sethi (K. B. Asthana, with 
him) for 
appellant No. 1. 
S. 
C. Isaacs 
(Murtza Faz! Ali, with him) 
for 
appellant No. 2. 
Porus A. Mehta for the respondent. 
1954. March 5. 
The Judgment of the 
Court was 
delivered by 
BHAGWATI J.-The appellant No. I was the Minister 
of Industries and the appellant No. 2 was the Secre-
tary to the Government of the 
Commerce and Indus-
tries 
Department of the 
State of Vindhya 
Pradesh. 
The appellant No. 1 was 
charged 
with having com-
mitted offences under sections 120-B, 161, 465 
and 466 
of the Indian 
Penal Code and the appellant 
No. 2 
under sections 120-B and 161 of the Indian Penal Code 
as adopted by the Vindhya Pradesh Ordinance No. 48 
of 1949. They were tried in the 
Court of the Special 
Judge at Rewa under the 
Vindhya 
Pradesh Criminal 
Law Amendment 
(Special 
Courts) Ordinance No. LVI 
of 1949 and the Special Judge acquitted 
both 
of them. 
The State of Vindhya Pradesh took an appeal 
to 
the 
Court of the 
Judicial 
Commissioner, 
Rewa. 
The 
Judicial Commissioner reversed the 
order of acquittal 
passed by the 
Special Judge and convicted 
both 
the 
appellants 
of the several 
offences 
with 
which 
they 
were charged. 
The Judicial 
Commissioner awarded to 
the 
appellant No. 1 a sentence of 
3 years 
rigorous 
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default rigo-
rous imprisonment of 9 months under 
section 120-B 
of the 
Indian 
Penal 
Code and a sentence 
of three 
years' rigorous imprisonment 
under 
section 161 of the 
Indian Penal Code, both the sentences 
to run concur-
rently. 
He imposed no sentence upon the 
appellant 
No. 1 under sections 465 and 466 of · the 
Indian Penal 
Code. 
He awarded to the appellant 
No. 2 a sentence 
of rigorous imprisonment 
for one year and a fine 
of 
Rs. 1,000 and in default 
ngorous 
imprisonment 
for 
1954 
Rao Shiv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.