The movies came to Bihar in the early years of 20th century. J F Madan had acquired the 'Elphinstone Theatre Co.' of Bombay in 1902 and converted it into 'The Elphinstone Bioscope Co'. 
Patna had its own Elphinstone Theatre which became the Elphinstone cinema, and started showing short silent films. Close on its heels, two brothers felt inspired and were motivated into starting a joint venture, at Bhagalpur, named after their daughters, nick named as Madhu and Laxami . The combination made it Madhu Laxami . That was the name they gave to the first silent cinema theatre which a pre-existing warehouse premises housed for some couple of years. Bhagalpur got its first silent cinema with a small seating capacity of a hundred or two. Cinema, even though silent, drew huge crowd as it was a long jump, so to say, for its local audience whose upper limit for entertainment had so far been theatres which itself was mostly unavailable in its then advanced form, as theatre's primitive variants only used to be available in periodical fairs or festivals. 
The joint venture of the two brothers, babu Akhileshwari Sahai and Babu Nakuleshwari Sahai  was thus a run away success. Their success came in for their close friends' admiration, but one of his close friends , a local celebrity and Zamindar, admiringly questioned their imbecility about choosing a wrong venue, capacity wise as also  situationally. Their Zamindar  friend said he detested visiting the ramshackle theatre which was situated around an already crowded railway station area. He advised them to shift the theatre to his space situated in the then al most deserted Khalifabag locality which was off the main road as well as fully enclosed , bearing a large area that would afford all facilities for developing their entertainment industry.
By this time whispers were already in the air, signalling the possible advent of the talkie era.
Enthused, the two brothers gabbed the opportunity that thus came their way. In a brief span of time, Madhu Laxami Cinema got shut down and its infrastructure shifted whole hog to the new site situated at Shekhawat Hussain Lane of mohalla khalifabag. It carried a new name, "Picture Palace" , which screened silent movies but it updated itself into talkies as soon as the first talkie variant arrived in 1931, namely "Alam Ara".  

Likewise, with reference to Patna, After the advent of Talkies,  Elphinstone Cinema had started showing films with sound. Its ownership changed after the collapse of the Madan empire in 1930s. There is mention of another silent cinema theatre built in China Kothi, Patna, which withered away after the advent of Talkies in 1931. The first 'Talkie Theatre' of Patna was built at Babu Bazar, south-west Patna, debuting with the talkie, 'Veer Abhimanyu', in 1933 or 1934. Not long after, a huge fire destroyed the theatre, caused by the highly volatile nitrate film reels. It was never rebuilt. From this account, it transpires that Elphinstone graduated into talkies in later years. As such, despite being the first movie theatre of Bihar, it lagged behind in retaining its first place as the talkie theatre, conceding it it to Picture Palace which was upgraded earlier in time frame, thereby ranking as Bihar's oldest movie talkies, not movie theatre because that space stood pre-occupied by Patna's Elphinstone which may further boast of sustaining itself till date whereas its rival Picture Palace which over took it in the race of becoming the first movie talkies of Bihar has since withered, shutting down in 1986, its premises fragmented into un-symmetrically plotted low class market that has devoured the mortal history of cinema in Bihar, besides other things of not much value, save and except that which it stealthily hides from public vision, the failed judicial system. That is what this write up contemplates to address.     

We hear journalists , analysts and historians discuss Nehru. Such discussions seem less analytical than subjective admiration. It is time for we Indians to attain maturity, which our seniors and forefathers simply neglected, if not failed, to exhibit. Here is a humble beginning, which please share and supplement, if you may, exercising discreet objectivity.

http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-why-jawaharlal-nehru-is-the-root-cause-of-indias-economic-troubles-1564479


Those who praise Nehru for the vision he had, may as well discuss some very non-technical aspects involving ground realities.
What made India to let its dragon neighbour China to advance way ahead, in every visible field, trade, industry, commerce, finance and ,above all, defence? This may seem a question asked out of curriculum, for many who love mugging up that which committed analysts feed the non-questioning mediocres. For such kind, a simple, rather too simple poser, may be of help. Why is it that since after the arrival of Maruti Suzuki in India since early eighties, car segment witnessed a revolution, as opposed to what Nehruvian policies compelled the Indians to endure , with  the unbearable trio, ambassador-fiat-standard? If foreign companies had landed in India in the early fiftees, who would have lost? Birlas and the likes? It is said, Nahru entertained high democratic values. Why then Nehru was never discussed on these issues? Few would believe that there was not much difference between Nehru and Indira. The former was a covert whereas the latter was an overt .............  ( I am unable to find an exact equivalent for the word, 'dictator' that would aptly fit in without being so gross as is the term, 'dictator', for I know, Indian's mind-set is too repugnant to the use of gross expressions, notwithstanding such expressions being exact and appropriate). 

CONFESSION AND ADMISSION

RIGHTCLICK

मराठी कॉर्नर सभासद

marathi

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2009

CONFESSION AND ADMISSION

CONFESSION

(JUDICIAL & EXTRA JUDICIAL)

AND ADMISSION

Admissions

All confessions are admissions but every admission may not be a confession. To be a confession, admission should contain an acknowledgment of the guilt.Therefore, all confession are admissions, but every admission may not be a confession.

Now let us see what is meant by ADMISSION.

Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act defines admission which means a statement (oral or documentary or contained in electronic form) which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the person and under the circumstances mentioned in section 18 to 23 of the Indian Evidence Act.

An admission must be clear, precise, unequivocal, categorical,not vague or ambiguous . An admission ,is the best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon, though not conclusive, it is nevertheless decisive on the point unless proved erroneous or is validly allowed to be withdrawn.

Evidentiary Value of ADMISSION

Admissions though not conclusive proof of matters admitted, but they are relevant under section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act. An admission is not conclusive unless it amounts to estoppal. It may be proved to be wrong but unless proved it is a very strong piece of evidence against the maker thereof and is decisive of the matter, though not conclusive.

In Bhogilal Pandya v/s State AIR 1959 S.C. 356, it is discussed by the Apex Court,“The first group of sections in this Act in which the word statement occurs, are section 17 to 21, which deals with admissions. Section 17 defines the word admission. Section 18 to 20 lay down what statement are admissions against persons making them. The words used in section 18 to 21 in this connection are statements made by. It is not disputed that statements made by persons may be used as admissions against them even though they may not have been communicated to any other person. For eg. Statements in the account books of a person showing that he was indebted to another person are admissions which can be used against him even though these statements were never communicated to any other person.”

The provision that “admission is not conclusive proof” is to be considered in regard to two features of evidence :

1 The weight to be attached to an admission, would depend upon whether the admission is clear, unambiguous and relevant evidence; and

2 Even a proved admission sought to be used against its maker who as a witness is under cross-examination, he should be given an opportunity, if the admission is to be used against him to offer his explanation and to clear up the point of ambiguity or dispute.

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of State of Maharashtra -versus- Sukhdeo Singh, reported in 1992 (3) SCC 700, has held that, “The answer given by the accused in response to his examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading on the above sub-section.Therefore, though not strictly evidence, sub-section permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said inquiry or trial”.

Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Narain Singh -versus- State of Punjab, reported in 1964 (1) Cr.L.J. 730, has held that, “It is not open to the court to dissect the statement and to pick out a part of the statement which may be incriminative and then to examine whether the explanation furnished by the accused for his conduct is supported by the evidence on the record. If the accused admits to have done an act which would be the explanation furnished by him be an offence, the admission cannot be used against him divorced from explanation”.

ADMISSIONS in CIVIL CASES

Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act, deals with relevancy of admissions in civil cases, which provides that --

no admission is relevant in civil cases if is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it not be given, or under circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.

Confession

Confession is a statement made by accused which either admits in terms of offence or at any rate substantiate all the facts which constitute the offence.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sahib Singh -versus- State of Haryana reported in 1997 Cri.L.J. 3956, while defining the word confession, has observed that, “ a confession must either be an express acknowledgment of guilt of the offence charged, certain and complete in itself, or it must admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence”.

Confession is defined in Black's Dictionary

A voluntary statement made by person charged with commission of crime, communicated to another wherein he acknowledges himself to be guilty of the offence charged.

Confession may be divided in two classes :

1 Judicial

2 Extra judicial

Judicial confessions are those which are made before magistrate or court in the course of judicial proceedings.

Extra judicial confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere than before magistrate or court. Extra judicial confessions are generally those made by a party to or before a private individual which includes even a judicial officer in his private capacity. It also includes a magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or a magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stretch when section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply.

Evidentiary Value of Confessions :

It must be established that a confession is voluntary and also it is true. For the purpose of establishing its truth it is necessary to examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the prosecution evidence and the probabilities of the case.

Extra Judicial Confessions:

An extra judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. In the process of proof of Extra Judicial confession, the court is to be satisfied that it is not the result of inducement , threat or promise. Extra judicial confession possess a high probative value as it emanates from the person, who committed the crime, provided it is free from suspicion.

While appreciating the Extra judicial confession, the court has to consider the relevant factors like-

i. to whom it is made,

ii. the time and place of making it;

iii. the circumstances, in which it was made and the court has to look for any suspicious circumstances.

Evidentiary Value of Extra Judicial Confession :

It is not open to any court to start with the presumption that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. If the evidence relating to extra judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction. However, section 25 and 26 provides exception to this general rule.

Section 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act are related to confession made by accused in custody before police.

Section 25 – Confession to police officer not to be proved :-

No confession made to police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offence.

Section 26 – Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him :-

No confession made by any person whilst he is in custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a magistrate shall be proved as against such person.

In order to apply section 25 and section 26, it is desirable to consider as to who is a “POLICE OFFICER”.

Unless an officer who is invested under any special law with the powers of investigation under the code, including the power to submit the report under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he cannot be described as a police officer under section 25 of the Evidence Act.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases has described as to who is a POLICE OFFICER under various acts, within the ambit of section 25 of the Evidence Act. The various cases includes

1 State of Punjab -vs- Barkat RamAIR 1962 SC 276

2 Rajaram -vs- State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 828

3 Badaku -vs- State of Mysore AIR 1966 SC 1746

4 Ramesh -vs- State of W.B. AIR 1970 SC 940

5 Illias -vs- Collector of Custom AIR 1970 SC 1065

6 State of U.P. -vs- Durgaprasad AIR 1974 SC 2136

7 Balkishan -vs- State of Mah AIR 1981 SC 379

8 Rajkumar -vs- Union of India AIR 1991 SC 45

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of State of Rajasthan v/s Ajit singh and other reported in (2008) 1 SCC 601 has held that, section 15 of T.A.D.A. 1987, is a clear departure from the general law that a statement made to a police officer is not permissible in evidence.

Section 15 of the TADA Act 1987and section 18 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999, provides that, certain confessions made to police officer to be taken into consideration. The police officer recording the confession should not be below the rank of the Superintendent of Police.

Under both the acts it is mandatory to send the recorded confessions forthwith to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate having the local jurisdiction over the area in which such confession is recorded, and such Magistrate shall forward the recorded confession so received to the designated/ special court which may take cognizance of the offence.

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Kanhaiyyalal v/s Union of India reported in AIR 2008 SC 1044, has held that, “An officer vested with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station under sec. 53 of the NDPS Act is not a police officer with the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act. Thus it is clear that a statement made under sec. 67 of NDPS act is not the same as a statement made under section 161 of Cr.P.C. unless made under threat or coercion. It is this vital difference which allows a statement made under section 67 of the NDPS act to be used as a confession against the person making it and excludes it from the operation of section 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act”.

Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with recording of confessions and statements.

The conjoint reading of section 26 of Indian Evidence Act and section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives the exact meaning to record the confession of accused.

Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 further speaks that, “A Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate, may whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this chapter or under any law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial”. It further provides that – No confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.

Exception to Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.

Section 27 – How much of information received from accused may be proved – Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequences of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

Various requirements of this section :

1 The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue.

2 The fact must have been discovered.

3 The discovery must have been in consequence of some informationreceived from the accused and not byaccused's own act.

4 The person giving the information must be the accused of any offence.

5 He must be in the custody of a police officer.

6 The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from the accused in custody must be deposed to.

7 Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is in-admissible.

Confession before the Magistrate:

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. deals with the provision of recording of the confessions and statements by the Magistrate. Confession of a person is also made before the Magistrate or Court in the course of judicial proceedings

Following is the prescribed procedure for recording confession.

1 Confession should ordinarily berecorded in open court and during court hours.

2 Police officer should be removed from the court room unless in the opinion of the Magistrate, the duty of ensuring the safe custody of the accused cannot be left tothe other attendants.

3 Court should impress upon accused that he is no longer in police custody.

4 There must be inquiry by the court to the accused about ill-treatment on improper conduct or inducement on the part of police and in spite the alleged ill-treatment, misconduct or inducement, he adheres to his intention of making a confessional statement, the Magistrate should give the accused a warning that he in not bound to make confession and that if he does so, it will be taken down and may thereafter be used as evidence against him. A note of the warning given to the accused should be kept on record.

5 The Magistrate should give accused a reasonable time not less than 24 hours for reflection.

6 After accused is produced again, he be ascertained as to whether he is willing to make a confession. If the accused expresses his desire to confession, all the police officer should be removed from the court room unless his safe custody entrusted to other attendants. In that case minimum police officer should be allowed to remain inthe court room.

7 Magistrate then inquire the accused about the length of time during which he has been in custody of police.

8 Provisions of section 163, 164 of Cr.P.C. should be scrupulously followed.

9 Court has to satisfy that impression caused by any suchinducement, threat or promise has been fully removed.

10 Before recording confession, the Magistrate is bound toquestion the accused person unless upon that questioning he has reason to believe that the confession is voluntary, he cannot make the memorandum at the foot of the record.

11 Before recording a confession, the Magistrate should question the accused with a view to ascertaining the exactcircumstances in which his confession is being made and the connection of the police with it under clause iv, vi, x of the criminal manual.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Babubhai versus State of Gujrat, reported in 2007 Cr.L.J. 786, has held that, “while recording the confession oath should not be administer to the person while making the confession”.

12 Magistrate should add to the certificate, the ground on which he believes that the confession is genuine , the precaution which he took to remove accused frominfluence of police and the time , if any given to accused for reflection.

13 It is mandatory on the part of Magistrate as per sec. 164 (4) that the confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused and it has to be signed by the person making the confession and to make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect-

“ I have explained to --------- ,that he is not bound to make a confession, and that if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him”

Magistrate.

Confession should also be recorded in question answer form.

It is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate that while recording the confession of a person he should follow section 163, 164 of the code of criminal procedure scrupulously.

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Ramsingh v/s Sonia reported in 2007 Cr.L.J 1642, has held that, “If magistrate failed to question about voluntariness of confession to the person making confession, but in evidence before court he states that he had asked such question to the person making confession and also certificate as mentioned in section 164 of Cr.P.C is appended to the confession then such confession cannot be discarded on the ground of such irregularity in view of section 463 of the Cr.P.C.

If the First Information of an offence is given by the accused to a Police Officer, and that information admits his own guilt, it is a confession which cannot be proved under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act against the accused.

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Aghnoo Nagesia -versus- State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 SC 119, has observed that, “(18) If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by S.25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of Section 25 is lifted by Section 27”.

Sudeep , an enlightened member of this fb fratenity has an intelligent poser, if mahatma gandhi was a martyr, why should'nt indira and rajiv too be rated so.

The term Martyr should not confuse one! Martyr is a term used in specific as well as in generic sense. In specific sense, Shaheed Bhagat Singh is a good example. Why? One need not ask, if an Indian, born in India and grown up in India. That means what specific sense signifies. On the other hand, generic sense is a symbolic sense. In legal parlance it is called legal fiction. Something which is not, is given the status of that which it is not. If your delivering fabric from one corner of the city to the other corner, is given the status of export, it would be called a deemed export, by the legal fiction given to it, irrespective whether it is factually correct or not. Likewise, by symbolic use of the term, Gandhi may be calked a Martyr, even though in literal sense Gandhi may not qualify, like Indira Gandhi was not a graduate, much less post graduate, hence ineligible to be even admitted into a faculty that granted doctorate. Yet, she was granted, rather honoured with a D.Lit, perhaps by the Oxford University into which in ordinary Course , an individual of Mrs. gandhi's qualificational standing would not get even an entry. But this kind of degree is of symbolic kind, aimed at honouring some one in a noble gesture of exaggeration. It is in this sense that Gandhi is honoured, but the question is whether Indira or Rajiv are entitled for such an honour.

How vibrant is the media?
Refer Vadra Case, as Media reports.
Vadra purchased land for a small price consideration and sold it at huge profit. He thus made crores without investing anything in substance. In the transactions are also involved government licensing. All these involve lubrications which state government is alleged to have facilitated.
Fine. 
I have some questions. May be I missed to notice the answers which media reports might have given. If that be so, please supplement. But if not, please don't decry when I decry media depravity,
First, Vadra purchased , from whom? From private party? Or from the Government? What are its other details? If the purchase price was small and the margin Vadra earned was astounding, the one who really lost was the vendor. Who that vendor is and what does the vendor say in that regard. What are the property and registration laws in practice there which involve government approval and at what stage, for what? Where does licensing by government come into play?
And above all, why so many questions should lurk, when the media is said to be so vibrant? 

Beating Retreat Ceremony , What Is?

What is beating retreat ceremony? Media is using this expression repetitively, with reference to the Wagha Border blast that rocked a couple of days ago.
Each time the media, particularly the electronic media repeats this expression, a curiosity arises, what does this ceremony imply, beat or retreat.
In my four decade long experience as a newsman, me and my colleagues like Mukutdhari Agrawal, K.P.Roy, and many others, followed one essential rule. That rule was to avoid the use of a cryptic or unintelligible or little known or little remembered term, name or reference.
Instead of feeding vagueness, we would explain the term, name or reference in simple one liners.
This simple discipline is not followed. That leaves the readers and viewers in imbecile dilemma, as most of us might be in, with reference to the above term, 'beating retreat ceremony'.
If you already know what it is, the next lines are not for you. But if you are unaware, following may be of your interest .
WHAT IS BEATING RETREAT CEREMONY?
This ceremony takes place every evening before sunset at the Wagah border, which as part of the Grand Trunk Road was the only road link between these two countries before the opening of the Aman Setu in Kashmir in 1999. The ceremony starts with
a blustering parade by the soldiers from both the sides, and ends up in the perfectly coordinated lowering of the two nations' flags.[2] It is called the beating retreat border ceremony on the international level. One infantryman stands at attention on each side of the gate. As the sun sets, the iron gates at the border are opened and the two flags are lowered simultaneously. The flags are folded and the ceremony ends with a retreat that involves a brusque handshake between soldiers from either side, followed by the closing of the gates again. The spectacle of the ceremony attracts many visitors from both sides of the border, as well as international tourists.[2]
In October 2010, Major General Yaqub Ali Khan of the Pakistan Rangers decided that the aggressive aspect of the ceremonial theatrics should be toned down.[1][3]
The ceremony has been filmed and broadcast by Michael Palin for one of his television around-the-world travel programs; he described it as a display of "carefully choreographed contempt."[2]