1|Page

In the Honorable Supreme Court of India

At New Delhi, India

Petition No: 409/ 1960

_________________________________
In the Matter of

Mr. OM PRAKASH ……………………..... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF UP………….………………… Respondent

CITATION-AIR 1960 SC 409

Memorial on Behalf of the Respondent

TABLE OF CONTENTS
2|Page

1. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES..............................................................2- 4

a) Acts/ Statutes........................................................................................... 2
b) Books....................................................................................................... 2
c) Internet Sources....................................................................................... 2
d) List of Cases............................................................................................. 3

2. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.................................................... 5

3. SYNOPSIS OF FACTS.......................................................................... 6

4. ISSUES RAISED..................................................................................... 7

5. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS............................................................ 8

6. BODY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................09- 17
 WHETHER THE COURT IS BOUND TO GIVEN ANY JUDGEMENT ON THE
BASES OF CONFESSION STATEMENT?
 WHETHER THE CONFESSION IS ADMISSIBLE IF THE STATEMENTIN IS
GIVEN IN FRONT OF ANY POLICE OFFICER OR ANY POLICE CUSTODY?
 WHETHER THE COURTS HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE IN
THE EXERCISE OF POWER ?
3|Page

 WHETHER THIS CASE IS COVER UNDER IPC ?.

7. Prayer.....................................................................................................

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

ACTS/STATUTES:

 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872

 INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

 PAREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1947

BOOK:

 JAIN M.P., INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GURGAON, LEXIS NEXIS

BUTTERWORTHS WADHWA NAGPUR, 2010, SIXTH EDITION

 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ,AVTAR SINGH,2ND EDITION

 MASSEY I.P., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, LUCKNOW, EASTERN BOOK

COMPANY, 2008, SEVENTH EDITION

 SHUKLA V.N., CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, LUCKNOW, EASTERN BOOK

CORPORATION, 2008, ELEVENTH EDITION.

INTERNET SITES:
4|Page

 www.judis.nic.in
 www.loksabha.nic.in
 www.manupatra.com

LISTS OF CASES

1. Pyare Lal vs State of Rajasthan------------------------------------------------------------ 10

A.I.R 1954 All 319

2. Pakala Narayan swami vs Emperor ---------------------------------------------------- 13

(1886)11.App.cases197

3. Keshwanand Bharti V. State of Kerala----------------------------------------------------10

A.I.R 1973 SC 1461

4. Nishi kant jha vs stete of Bihar ------------------------------------------------------------09

1884 12 QBD 271

5. Sita Ram vs. State AIR 1966 SC 1906-------------------------------------------------12

A.I.R 1988 Mad 275
5|Page

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner in the present case has approached the Hon’ble Supreme court of India under
Section 17-31 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872

The Respondent respectfully submits to this jurisdiction invoked by the Petitioner.

6|Page

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The appellant, Om Prakash, was tried on two charges respectively under Section 165A and
Section 468/109 I. P. C., before the Special Judge, Bulandshahar empowered under Section 6 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was convicted under Section 165A I. P. C., and
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. He was acquitted of the second charge. He
appealed to the High Court of Allahabad against his sentence, and contended, inter alia, that his
conviction under Section 165A, I. P. C., was against the provisions of Article 20 of the
Constitution, because the offence was alleged to have been committed by him on December 4,
1948, whereas the said offence was first created on July 28, 1952, when Section 165A was first
enacted and introduced in the Indian Penal Code by Section 3of the Criminal Law Amendment
Act (No. 46 of 1952). This contention was accepted by the High Court, and the conviction was
changed to one under Section 161 read with Section 109 I. P. C., but the sentence was
maintained. The appellant applied for a certificate of fitness under Article 134(1)(c) of the
Constitution, and the High Court having refused it, he was granted special leave by this Court.

 The two charges on which he was tried, disclose the facts sufficiently for the purpose of this
appeal, and may be quoted here :

"Firstly :--That you paid Rs. 300 on or about 4th December, 1948, to Roshan Lal Gupta, unit
clerk in M. I.'s office Bulandshahar to issue to you fictitious permits for bricks and which were
issued to you, to wit permits Nos. 19, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Indent Book No. 59, which were later
on detected and order was issued for not crediting them and they were cancelled and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 165A of the I. P. C., and within my cognizance
as Special Judge.
7|Page

Secondly :--That you abetted the forging of permits Nos. 19, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Indent Book
No. 59 by Roshan Lal in fictitious names and you. took them from Roshan Lal intending that
these permits shall be used for cheating the department and the cultivators in general and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section 468/109 of the Indian Penal Code and within my
cognizance as a Special Judge, and I thereby direct you be tried by this court on the said
charges."

3. In this appeal, the appellant has urged only two points. The first is that the High Court acted
without jurisdiction in altering the conviction to one under Section 161/ 109 I. P. C., or, at any
rate, acted illegally in doing so; and the other is that the High Court was in error in relying upon
Exs. P-3 and P-4 (two statements made by him) as confessions of the offence with which he was
charged, in the absence of any other or even corroborating evidence to bring home the
accusation.

4. As regards the first contention, it is sufficient to say that the effect in law of Section 161/109 I.
P. C., is precisely the same as that of Section 165A, at least in so far as the abetment of an
offence actually committed, is concerned. There were no further facts needed to be brought to
the notice of the appellant by the amended charge, and the punishment both under Section
161/109 and Section 165A is the same. In fact, if Section 165A could be regarded as a freshly
created offence, it did nothing more than provide expressly what was already provided by the
Code by the two other sections. The change was in respect of abetment of offences not
committed, that is to say, Section 161 read with Section 116. In view of the provisions
of Sections 225 and 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this error in the charge cannot be
taken note of, particularly as the appellant himself could have raised this objection at a much
earlier stage during the trial, and also as no prejudice has been suggested nor could be round by
us. This contention, therefore, is rejected.
8|Page

ISSUES RAISED

 WHETHER ANY DEFINITION IS GIVEN REGARDING TO THE

CONFESSSION UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872?

 WHETHER THE COURT IS BOUND TO GIVEN ANY JUDGEMENT ON THE

BASES OF ANY CONFESSION?

 WHETHER THE COURT HAS INHERENT POWER UNDER THIS SECTION?

 WHETHER THERE IS A CONFESSION INVOLVED IN THESE TWO

DOCUMENTS READ AS A WHOLE?
9|Page

BODY OF ARGUMENTS

I) WHETHER THE CONFESSION IS ADMISSIBLE IF THE STATEMENTIN

IS GIVEN IN FRONT OF ANY POLICE OFFICER OR ANY POLICE
CUSTODY?

Confession is not defined in the Evidence Act. In Pakala Narayan Swami V. R., the court
said that a confession should either admit in terms of the offence or, at any rate substantially
all the facts which constitute a crime. The reason for allowing confession is that what a man
voluntarily says against his own interests, is likely to be true. The confession should be
recorded according to Sn.164 Cr.P.C. ii) Admissibility: To make a confession relevant, it
must be shown that it was made by the accused that it was voluntary that it was true (accused
may be convicted on this ground). confession should not be prompted by inducement, threat
or promise from a person in authority or made to gain any advantage or to avoid any evil of a
temporal nature. confession to a police officer is not admissible (Sn.25) the confession is
admissible if it is made before the Magis trate. It is not admissible if it is made by the
accused while in police custody *(Sn.26) The reason for this is that a confession in police
custody is untrustworthy. Further, it may have been msrlawbooks © Evidence Act Page 22
exerted by torture by using "swear-box" or third degree methods".

(Taylor) g) the burden of proving that the confession is voluntary is on the prosecution. If it
is not voluntary, even if it is true, it is not admissible. i) How much of information,
admissible: (Sn.27) If the accused in police custody discloses any information and in
consequence of that, the police discover a fact, only so much of information as relates
distinctly to the fact so discovered may be proved.
10 | P a g e

II) WHETHER THE COURT IS BOUND TO GIVEN ANY JUDGEMENT ON

THE BASES OF CONFESSION STATEMENT?

 NO.Section 24 to 30 of Indian Evidence Act deals with confessions. Confessions should be

voluntary. There are four kinds of Confession

a) judicial confession,

b) Extra-Judicial Confession,

c) Retracted Confession,

d) Confession by co-accused. 

  The expression confession means a statement made by an accused admitting his guilt. It is an
admission as to the commission of an offence. If a person accused of an offence makes a
statement against himself, it is called confession or confessional statement. Confessions are the
special form of admissions. Thus it is popularly said that "All Confessions are admissions, but all
Admissions are not confessions

According to Sir James Stephen "An admission made at any time by a person charged with a
crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime".

     The term confession no where defined in the Indian Evidence Act 1872, But the definition of
admission under section 17 of Indian evidence Act becomes applicable to confession also.
Section 17 provides " A statement, oral or documentary which suggests any inference as to any
fact in issue or relevant fact."
11 | P a g e

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the

respondent, most humbly prays before the Hon’ble court, to be graciously pleased to hold

adjudge and declare that:

1) The Petition must be grand in the court of law

2) The decision of the Court be Upheld;

3) To make appropriate remedy

4) To pass any other order which the Humble court may deem fit in the light of
Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

All of Which is most humbly prayed and most respectfully submitted by the Respondent.
12 | P a g e

Date: S/d_________________

(Counsel for Respondent)