JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This is an appeal by Bhola Nath who has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Allahabad u/s 395, I.P.C., and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six years. According to the prosecution, six or seven dacoits reached the house of Bhagwati Prasad in village Sewa, police circle Handia, district Allahabad, one night at about 9 p.m. The dacoits carried a pistol, knives and torches. They assaulted Bhagwati Prasad, and demanded the key of his safe. But Bhagwati Prasad did not deliver the key. He was stabbed with a knife. Dacoits broke open the safe, and removed valuable articles from it. A neighbour Kamla Shankar intervened. Dacoits fired shots at him. The dacoits left the place after looting Bhagwati Prasad's house for half an hour. Next morning a report was lodged at the police station by the village Chaukidar. Bhola Nath accused was questioned by the police in district Banaras in connection with another crime. The accused made a confession with respect to this dacoity in district Allahabad. The accused was then wearing a dhoti looted in this dacoity. The police took off that dhoti from Bhola Nath's person. Bhola Nath's confession was recorded by a Magistrate in district Banaras. The dhoti was put up for identification. It was identified as an article lost in the dacoity at Bhagwati Prasad's house. Bhola Nath was put up in jail for identification. He was identified by a number of persons. Bhola Nath and four others were prosecuted by the police in connection with this dacoity. The learned Magistrate discharged four accused, and committed Bhola Nath alone to the court of session. 2. The accused pleaded not guilty. He admitted that a dhoti was recovered from his possession. He said that the dhoti belonged to him. He admitted having made the confession before the Magistrate in district Banaras. The accused explained that he was kept shut up in a lock up by the police for three days. He was mercilessly beaten. So he agreed to make a confession as tutored by the police. He said that he was shown to witnesses at the police station. Further, witnesses knew him from before. The case was tried with the aid of four assessors. All the assessors were of the opinion that the accused is not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge disagreed with the assessors. He said that he was shown to witnesses at the police station. Further, witnesses knew him from before. The case was tried with the aid of four assessors. All the assessors were of the opinion that the accused is not guilty. The learned Sessions Judge disagreed with the assessors. He convicted Bhola Nath u/s 395, I.P.C. 3. Bhagwati Prasad's house is said to have been looted at about 9 p.m. on 8-3-1951. Ganga Prasad Chaukidar lodged the first information report on 9-3-1951 at 7 a.m. The police station is at a distance of six miles from village Sewa. It was stated in the report that the crime was committed by eight or ten persons whose names and residence were not known. 4. There is medical evidence to show that Kamla Shankar received an abrasion on the right side of his chest. Bhagwati Prasad received four stab wounds on different parts of his body. 5. The prosecution produced three persons as eye-witnesses of the dacoity. P.W. 8 is Bhagwati Prasad. He said that five or seven persons came to him with various weapons. Shesh Dhar (P.W.7) is Bhagwati Prasad's son. He mentioned six or seven dacoits. Kamla Shankar is P.W. 10. In his examination-in-chief he said that there ware four or five dacoits in the Osara. In cross-examination he said that there were three or four dacoits in the Osara. In answer to a question put by the Court, the witness said that the dacoits numbered nine or ten when they ran out. So from the statements of these three witnesses it appears that the number of the offenders was at least five. From the statements of these three witnesses and the medical evidence it is proved that, Bhagwati Prasad's house was looted by certain persons, who were at least five in number. There is sufficient evidence about the factum of dacoity. 6. The evidence against Bhola Nath is of three kinds. Firstly, there is the direct evidence of witnesses, who identified him in jail and before the Court Bhola Nath was put up for identification in jail on 1-6-1951. The identification parade was held within three months after the dacoity. He was identified by three witnesses, Bhagwati Prasad, Kamla Shankar and Shesh Dhar, none of whom made any mistake in the identification. The identification parade was held within three months after the dacoity. He was identified by three witnesses, Bhagwati Prasad, Kamla Shankar and Shesh Dhar, none of whom made any mistake in the identification. Bhagwati Prasad and his son Shesh Dhar admitted that, 15 or 20 days before the dacoity this accused had passed by their door and taken water. It is thus proved that these two witnesses, Bhagwati Prasad and Shesh Dhar had seen Bhola Nath accused only a few days before the dacoity. Kamla Shankar is Bhagwati Prasad's neighbour. Since two out of the three witnesses had seen the accused before the dacoity, the evidence of identification does not carry great weight. But this evidence of identification can be considered along with other evidence. 7. The second piece of evidence against the accused is the recovery of the dhoti. The dhoti was recovered by Sri Abdul Jabbar Sub Inspector (P.W.I). He stated that in April 1951 he was Station Officer of Gopiganj in district Banaras. He was investigating a certain dacoity case of district Banaras. In that connection he sent for Bhola Nath for interrogation. Bhola Nath did not supply any useful information about the dacoity in district Banaras. However, Bhola Nath confessed having taken part in the dacoity in village Sewa in police circle Handia, district Allahabad. The accused handed over dhoti (Ex. I), which he was then wearing. The Sub-Inspector took possession of the dhoti. It was argued on behalf of the Appellant that, the Sub-Inspector was not entitled to seize the dhoti, as the dhoti related to a crime of district Allahabad. In the present case the question whether the police officer of district Banaras was entitled to seize the dhoti involved in a crime of district Allahabad is not a matter of much importance. The important point is that somehow the Sub-Inspector did recover the dhoti (Ex.I) from the Appellant's person. This fact is admitted by the accused himself. 8. The next question for consideration is whether the dhoti belongs to Bhagwati Prasad as urged by the prosecution or belongs to the accused as pleaded by him. Ex. I is a male dhoti of blue border. Ex. P-7 is the list of looted property furnished by Bhagwati Prasad. Four new five yard male dhotis were mentioned at item No. 7 of Ex. P-7. Ex. I is a male dhoti of blue border. Ex. P-7 is the list of looted property furnished by Bhagwati Prasad. Four new five yard male dhotis were mentioned at item No. 7 of Ex. P-7. It was mentioned in the list that, one of the dhotis was of blue colour. It was suggested for the prosecution that the description meant a dhoti of blue border. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that, the description denoted a dhoti, the body of which was of blue colour. Dhoti Ex. I is of blue broder. The dhoti (Ex.I) was put up for identification before a Magistrate. The dhoti was mixed with four other male dhotis. Dhoti (Ex.I) was identified by Bhagwati Prasad and his son Shesh Dhar. Shesh Dhar stated before the Court that, the borders of the dhotis (sic) with Ex.I were not similar. Admittedly, the dhoti was recovered from the Appellant's person. If the evidence of identification were considered by itself, it may not suffice to fix the ownership of the dhoti. But the accused mentioned in his confession that, he received one dhoti as his share of the loot. That dhoti was handed over by him to the Sub-Inspector. The statements of Bhagwati Prasad and Shesh Dhar, and the admission contained in the confession are sufficient to prove that the dhoti was looted in the daccity. 9. The third piece of evidence against the accused is his confession. The confession was recorded by Sri Bhagwati Prasad Magistrate (P.W. 2). He was a Judicial Officer in district Banaras. He stated that the report (Ex. P-2) was sent to him by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 19-1-1951. That clay Sri Bhagwati Prasad warned Bhola Nath accused that his statement would be recorded on 20-4-1951. Accordingly Sri Bhagwati Prasad recorded Bhola Nath's confession (Ex. P-11) on 20-4-1951. 10. It will thus be seen that, Sri Bhagwati Prasad recorded the confession on the basis of the report (Ex P-2) submitted by Sri Abdul Jabbar Sub Inspector. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that, Sri Abdul Jabbar had no authority to submit any such report, as the case related to district Allahabad and not to district Banaras. 11. Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure deals with investigation into cognizable cases. The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that, Sri Abdul Jabbar had no authority to submit any such report, as the case related to district Allahabad and not to district Banaras. 11. Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure deals with investigation into cognizable cases. Sub-section (1) of Section 156 states: Any officer in charge of a police station may...invest gate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XV.... 12. Thus u/s 156, a police officer in charge of a police station can investigate only those cases, which relate to the local area. Under this section the police officer is not empowered to investigate cases, which do not relate to his circle. So Sri Abdul Jabbar Sub-Inspector had no authority to investigate the case of district Allalabad. It may be that Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure did not empower Sri Abdul Jabbar to submit the report (Ex. P-2.). But having come to know that Bhola Nath was concerned in a dacoity of district Allahabad, the Sub-Inspector was not wrong in requesting a Magistrate of district Banaras to record the confession. 13. The important question is whether Sri Bhagwati Prasad Magistrate was empowered to record the confession. Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure empowers Magistrates to record confessions. Sub-section (1) of Section 164 states: Any Presidency Magistrate, any Magistrate of the first class...may...record any statement or confession made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. 14. In the case of C.W. Cases (A.I.R. 1948 Mad 459) the offence was said to have been committed at Kanpur. An application u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure was made to the Chief Presidency Magistrate at Madras to record the statement of a witness. It was held that such statement was not one 'given at or about the time when the fact took place' or 'before any authority legally competent to investigate' the fact. As such, the statement will not be admissible in evidence u/s 157 of the Evidence Act. In that case the Court was dealing with the admissibility of a statement made by a witness u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. As such, the statement will not be admissible in evidence u/s 157 of the Evidence Act. In that case the Court was dealing with the admissibility of a statement made by a witness u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held that the statement of the witness was not available for corroboration u/s 157 of the Evidence Act. In the present case we are dealing with the confession of an accused, and not with a statement of a witness. In the present case we are not concerned with the question of corroboration u/s 157 of the Evidence Act. The confession of an accused is substantive evidence against him. There is no question of corroboration. 15. All that Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure requires is that, the Magistrate must be empowered to record confessions. Secondly, the confession must be recorded in the course of an investigation or at any time before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. It was not disputed that the confession recorded by Sri Bhagwati Prasad on 20-4-1951 was before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. At that stage the crime was being investigated in district Allahabad. In order to give jurisdiction to the Magistrate of district Banaras for recording the confession, it was not necessary that the crime should be under investigation in district Banaras. It was sufficient that the matter was under investigation. So Sri Bhagwati Prasad, Magistrate had authority to record Bhola Nath's confession at Banaras, although the case related to district Allahabad. 16. On 19-4-1951 Sri Bhagwati Prasad Magistrate made a note on the back of Ex. P-2 to the effect that, he had warned the accused that his confession would be recorded next day. It was urged for the Appellant that, 19-4-1951 was a holiday. Sri Bhagwati Prasad conceded the possibility of 19-4-1951 being a holiday. He said that he must have gone to jail on 19-4-1951 in connection with some identification proceeding. Ex. P-11 is the confession. In Ex. P-11 we find the questions written in blue ink, and the answers written in dark ink. Sri Bhagwati Prasad explained that the District Magistrate had issued a circular for guidance of Magistrates for recording confessions. In view of those instructions, Sri Bhagwati Pd. dictated the questions to his reader. Ex. P-11 is the confession. In Ex. P-11 we find the questions written in blue ink, and the answers written in dark ink. Sri Bhagwati Prasad explained that the District Magistrate had issued a circular for guidance of Magistrates for recording confessions. In view of those instructions, Sri Bhagwati Pd. dictated the questions to his reader. So the court reader wrote out the standard questions, and the Magistrate wrote out the answers as given by the accused. No serious objection can be taken to this procedure adopted by the Magistrate. One of the preliminary questions put to the accused before recording his confession was: Why do you want to make a confession? 17. The answer was, "Yes." The answer was meaningless. Sri Bhagwati Prasad appears to have made some confusion, because he had allowed the questions to be written out by his reader. 18. The accused reached jail on 19-4-1951. He was told that day that, his confession would be recorded next day. The confession was recorded on 20-4-1931. Sri Bhagwati Prasad put the usual preliminary questions before recording the confession. The accused said that he was making the statement voluntarily. He said that he was a Brahmin boy, and would make a true statement. The confession covers two typed pages. The confession mentions names of Bhola Nath's associates. Four persons named in the confession were prosecuted by the police for this dacoity. But the learned Magistrate discharged those four accused for want of evidence. We do not know whether these four persons really took part in this dacoity. At the end of the confession it was mentioned that, the accused got one dhoti as his share of the booty, and later that dhoti was handed over by him to the police. This part of the confession has been corroborated by the statement of Sri Abdul Jabbar Sub-Inspector and other evidence. The confession (Ex. P-11) appears to be true and made voluntarily. 19. It is true that the confession was later retracted by the accused. But even the retracted confession carries weight against the person making the confession. The retracted confession has been corroborated by the identification by three witnesses, and the recovery of the dhoti (Ex. I) from his possession. So the charge of dacoity is fully proved against Bhola Nath. 20. Some ornaments were looted in the dacoity. The dacoits carried and used fife arms. The retracted confession has been corroborated by the identification by three witnesses, and the recovery of the dhoti (Ex. I) from his possession. So the charge of dacoity is fully proved against Bhola Nath. 20. Some ornaments were looted in the dacoity. The dacoits carried and used fife arms. Bhagwati Prasad was stabbed. So the sentence passed upon Bhola Nath accused does not appear to be severe. 21. I uphold Bhola Nath's conviction and sentence u/s 395, IPC, and dismiss his appeal.