023-NLR-NLR-V-74-S.-NALLATHAMBY-and-another-Appellants-and-MUTTUKRISHNAN-Police-Sergant-Resp.pdf
XciVath'tnib’j v. .1l:ittit':rishnan
95
1970Present: Samerawickrame, J.
S. NALLATHA3LBY and another, Appellants, and jMUTTU-KRISHNAN (Police Sergeant), Respondent
S. C. 82-83/69—M. C. ChavakcichcJieri, 25079
Evidence Ordinance—Section 27—Scope.
Under section 27 of tho Evidence Ordinance, a statement in consoquenro ofwhich an orticlo is recovered may be used against an accused person only if itwas made while ho was in the custody of a police officer.
(1969) 73 N. L. R. 23.
(1953) 1 A. E.R. 350 at 355.
06
SAMERAWICICRAME, J.—Nallathamby t>. Aluthukrishnan
Appeals from a judgment of the Magistrate’s Court-, Chavakachcheri.
C. Motilal Nehru, for the 2nd accused-appellant.
1st accused-appellant absent and unrepresented.
Tyrone Fernando, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
April 18, 1970. Samebawickraaie, J.—
The learned Magistrato has relied for the convictions of the 1st and2nd accused-appellants on statements made by them to the police inconsequence of which the stolen articles had been recovered. The actualstatements made by the 1st and 2nd accused have not been produced norproved.
Learned Crown Counsel properly draws my attention to the fact thatthe statement made by the 2nd accused was made before he was arrested.Under Section 27 of the Evidence Ordinance, a statement in consequenceof which an article is recovered may be used against an accused persononly if it was made while he was in the custody of a police officer. In thecircumstances the convictions of the 1st and 2nd accused cannot stand.
The appeals are allowed. Their convictions and sentences are setaside.
Appeals allowed.