In Re: Kamakshi Naidu

Horwill, J.—The petitioner was found guilty of committing a criminal breach of trust with regard to a cycle that he had hired. There was evidence that he had borrowed the cycle and that he had sold it to some other person. There was also evidence of a confession. The question that arises in this petition is whether that confession was admissible.

The petitioner was arrested in connection with another criminal breach of trust in respect of a cycle that he had also taken on hire and then sold.

While in custody for that breach of trust, he confessed that he had sold another cycle to P.W. 12. As a result of that confession the cycle was

discovered. It is argued that such a confession is not admissible, because he was under arrest, not in connection with the theft of the cycle that was discovered as a result of the confession, but in connection with another case. I do not think that there is any substance in this point. Section 27 of the Evidence Act says that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any

offence, in the custody of a Police Officer, so much of such information * * * * may be proved. He was in police custody and he was accused of an offence. So on the plain words of the section this confession was admissible, because the cycle was discovered as a result of the confession.

The cases relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner ( Elukuri Seshapani Chetty Vs. Emperor, . and In Re: Kodangi alias Arunachalam

Servai, . ) although they have very little application to this case, are rather against the petitioner's contention than for it; for they indicate that

Section 25, to which Section 27 is a proviso, applies equally to confessions with regard to offences not under investigation as with regard to offences under investigation.

The learned advocate for the petitioner urges that as the accused is a young man, Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code might have been

applied to this case. It is true that it might have been applied; but the learned Magistrate who considered the matter thought that an order u/s 562

was inappropriate. I am not prepared to interfere with his discretion on the question of sentence.

The petition is dismissed.