In Re: V. Bati Reddi and Fifteen Ors.

Ayling, J.—The chief point taken by the petitioners'' vakil is the fact that the Magistrate has taken into consideration against the remaining

accused, u/s 30, Indian Evidence Act, the confessional statements of accused Nos. 14 and 17, who, when questioned u/s 342, Criminal Procedure

Code, at the close of the prosecution case, made statements implicating themselves and their co-accused, and pleaded guilty on a charge being

framed u/s 255. The vakil contends relying on the dictum of Boddam, J., in Queen-Empress v. Lakshmayya Pandaram I.L.R., (1899) Mad., 491

that these were not the statements of persons ""jointly tried"" with the petitioners, and hence were inadmissible u/s 30, Indian Evidence Act.

The learned Judge has based his conclusion on two other cases Queen-Empress v. Pirbhu I.L.R., (1895) All., 524 and Queen-Empress v.

Pahuji I.L.R., (1895) Bom., 195. With all respect, I do not consider that these decisions have any application to a case tried before a Magistrate

under chapter XXI of the Criminal Procedure Code. Both relate to trials before a Sessions Court, where the accused''s plea of guilty is recorded

u/s 271 at the outset of the trial. No doubt a prisoner who then pleads guilty and is convicted on his plea cannot be held to be tried jointly with

others (co-accused) against whom the case proceeds u/s 272. But the present case is quite different. All the accused were jointly tried before the

Magistrate, and their pleas were not recorded until after the close of the prosecution evidence, and after the recording of their statements now in

question, I can see no reason why statements made under these circumstances should not be taken into consideration u/s 30, Indian Evidence Act.

No other ground is shown for interference and the petition is dismissed.