Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1956, decided on 29th October 1956 from the order of A. D. M. and Special Judge, Mardan.
S. 556‑--Trial of accused by Magistrate who recorded confession--‑Bad in law ---Magistrate "personally interested".
The only question involved in this case is whether a Magistrate who records the confession of a certain person is entitled to try the person making the confession In my view, he is not. Under section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate is not authorized to try any case in which he is personally interested. The expression "personally interested" has been interpreted by the different High Courts as meaning not only "privately interested", but also "officially interested". If a Magistrate records a confession then he at once becomes at least officially interested in the case because it is to be proved that the confession recorded by him was genuine, true, and it was taken down after observing all the formalities laid down by the law. Apart from this, he is liable to be called as a witness in the case if the accused retracts the confession. I am consequently of the opinion that the trial of the accused by the Magistrate who recorded the confession is bad in law. It is quashed, and the case is sent back to the District Magistrate for retrial of the accused by a, Magistrate other than the one who recorded the confession.
K. B. A. Proceedings quashed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer