STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ASHULAL NANJI BISNOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is filed by the State against the order passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Session Case No. 58 of 1990 during deposition of witness PW 16 Exh. 126 Dr.Smt.S.L. Vaya, by which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge observed that the statements recorded by this witness of the accused respondents are confession in nature and, therefore, are not admissible and further that the witness had no authority under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to obtain statements of the accused and therefore the learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that the statements recorded by this witness were not admissible and further the learned Addl. Sessions Judge closed the evidence of witness and hence the State has filed this Revision Application against the said order passed on 5th of December, 1991 during the deposition of the above said witness.

(2.) The facts go to show that the present respondent along with other accused are charged under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and are being tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mehsana in Sessions Case No. 58/90. It is the case of the prosecution that the present three respondents during Police remand were subjected to "Lie Detection Test" carried out by Dr. Smt.S.L.Vaya, PW16, Exh.l26. While deposition was being recorded in examination-in-chief, the objection was raised that the statements recorded by PW16 is confessional in nature and she had no authority to record the statements of the accused though it was urged on behalf of the prosecution that the evidence was relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge not only held that the statements of the accused were inadmissible but closed the evidence of the witness PW16 at that stage.

(3.) Learned Advocate General Mr. S.N. Shelat was heard on behalf of the State - petitioner and learned Sr. Advocate Mr. A.D. Shah was heard on behalf of respondent No.1. While learned advocates for respondents No. 2 and 3 are not present.