LexTHE STATE OF BOMBAY versus KATHI KALU OGHAD AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
19&1
'I'll.1 .Marni,tment of
!itar/11~ lloltl
v.
The 1Vorkmrn
Wancl100 J.
1961
lo
StPREME COl1RT RRPORTS
[1962]
is i11 accorrlanr(' with the prrseot scale. Tho
workmen \l'l'I'C demanding HB. :J5, but the Tribunal
has fixed Rs. 20 per month anrl has pro\•idcd that
where a workman takes his meals at the hotel the
amount will be reduced by Rs. 15; but where he
lives in accommodation provided by the hotel but
docs not talw his meals there the amount will be
reduced by R~. 5; further whnr he both li,·es and
trtkPs his meals in the hotPI there will be no
dearness allowance paicl to him. We see no reason
to dis.igree with the view taken by the Tribunal
in thiR b(•half, particularly when it is ir. accordance
with what was prcrnlent in the hotel from before
according to tlw aware! of Sh1·i Dulat of .May 17,
1950.
The appeal
therefore fail:;
('Xecpt in the
mntt<'r of the modification in the casual.cum·
siekneHs leave as indicated above and it is hereby
dismissed with (·osts.
Appeal dinni88Cd enept for slight modification.
THE STATE OF BOMBAY
"·
KATHI KALU OGHAD AND OTHERS
(B. P. SINHA, c. J.. s. ,J.
IMAM, s. K. DAS,
P. R. GAJE);DRAGADKAR, A. IC
SAHKAR,
K. Si::HHA RAO, K. K.
WAXCHOO,
K. c.
DAS GUPTA,
RAGHUBAR
DAYAL, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYAXGAR
and ,T. R. MUllHOLKAR, JJ.)
'l'estimonial Compulsion -(Jbtai1iing «q.>ecimen u·riting and
thumb i1npreasion j1·om G('CUAP.d- Statenient of accWied in Pol1·ce
custody U.'Jl!d in et·ideru:t-lf confrca·enf ron.'ttitutional guarantee-
Conslitulion of India, Art. 20(8).
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act empowers the
court
to obtain specimen ,,·riting or signatw·e and finger
imprcs~ions of an accused person for purposes of comparison.
•
-
-
-
:.,c
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
11
1961
Sections 5 and 6 of the Identification of Prisoners Act empower
a Magistrate to obtain the photograph or measurements of an
accused person.
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
permits the reception in evidence of statc1nen ts made by an
accused person in police custody which lead to a discovery.
It was contended by the accused persons that the obtaining
of evidence in any of these ways amounted to compelling the
person accused of an offence "to be a witness against himself"
in contravention of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution. It was
further contended that it was implicit in the fact that the
accused was in police custody when the specimen signatures
or thumb impressions etc. were obtained that compulsion
was used.
Th. Stat• of Bombay
IlPld, that there was no infringement of Art. 20(3) of
the Constitution in compelling an accused person to give his
¥
specimen handwriting or signature, or impressions of his
thumb, fingers, palm or foot to the investigating officer or
under orders of a court for the purposes of comparison.
Held, further, that the provisions of s. 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act did not offend Art. 20(3) unless compulsion was
used in obtaining the information.
Compulsion was not
inherent in the receipt of information from an accused person
in the custody of a police officer; it will be a question of fact
in each case to be determined by the court on the evidence
before it whether compulsion had been used in obtaining the
information.
M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, (1954) S.C.R. 1077,
re~considered.
Per Sinha, C.J., Imam, Gajendragadkar, Subba Rao,
Wanchoo, R aghubar Dayal,
Rajagopala
Ayyangar and
Mudholkar, JJ. The correct position with respect to the
guarantee under Art. 20(3) is that-
(i)
the guarantee includes not only oral testimony
given in court or out of court but also statements in
,vriting which incriminate the n1aker when figuring as an
accused person;
(ii)
the words "to be a witness" in Art. 20(3) do
not include the giving of thumb 1n1pression or impression
of palm, foot or fingers or specimen writing or exposing a
part of the body by an accused person for identification;
{iii)
"self-incrimination" means conveying informa ..
tion based upon the personal knowledge of the giver and
does
not
include
the n1ere
mechanical process of
v.
Kathi K"Ct-lu Oghad
1961
Th< Stat• of
Bcmbay •
v.
Kathi Kalu Oghad
12
SUl'REM}j; COtJllT REPORTS
[1962)
producing documents in court which do not contain any
statement
of
the
accused
based on his personal
knowledge;
(iv)
in order to come within the prohibition of
Art. 20(3) the testimony must be of such a character
that by itself it sExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.