TEJPAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeall has been filed by Tejpal Singh against the order and judgment dated 15-9-1976 of the Special Judge, Meerut convicting him under section 165-A IPC and sentencing him to three months' RI..

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the appeal is barred under section 376 CrPC as the sentence is only for three months' RI and under Sec. 9 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act No. XLVI of 1952 for purposes of appeal or revision the Special Judge would be deemed to be a court of session. There appears to be force in this argument. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, prayed that this appeal may be treated as a revision and it be disposed of accordingly. His main contention is that section 165-A IPC did not exist on the date when the offence was said to have been committed and as such the conviction is illegal. I consider it a fit case for treating it as a revision and for interference under there visional jurisdiction.

(3.) THE learned Special Judge did not plaice any reliance on the extra judicial confession said to have been made before Lt. Cel. N. S. Chandhoke (PW 1) because in his opinion it was hit by Sec. 24 of the Indian Evidence Act because such a confession was extracted under threat that police could be called otherwise. It was obviously meant that inducement was given that he would not be handed over to the police in case he had made such a statement. THE conviction is thus based on the solitary testimony of Devi Datt (PW 5). Nayab Risal Dar Mahendra Singh (PW 3) head clerk of that office was also examined. He stated that he did not hear any talk between the appellant and Devi Datt) who were in the other room. He stated that he was called by Col. Sahib. At his dictation he prepared the FIR. He had also prepared the details of eight ten rupee notes which were lying on the table of Col. Sahib.