The duties, functions and powers vested in an authority by a Statute are relatable to the source which prescribes such functions and powers. The ambit, scope and effect of exercise of such power can be tested by two different concepts i.e. quo mod..

The duties, functions and powers vested in an authority by a Statute are relatable to the source which prescribes such functions and powers. The ambit, scope and effect of exercise of such power can be tested by two different concepts i.e. quo modo and actio quaelibet it suia via. In what manner the powers are to be exercised as per the prescribed procedure, the performance or action must follow its prescribed procedure. On applying the above stated principles and testing them with reference to the maxims stated (supra), it is not possible for the Court to hold that either the manner of functions and powers of Police Patil or method in which they are to be performed are equatable to the authority, powers and functions of a Police Officer, in law. Therefore, we are unable to contribute to the view that Police Patil is a Police Officer in law for all intent and purpose and confession before him would attract the bar contemplated under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 

In the result, we are of the opinion that for  proving   a   dying   declaration recorded   by  a person/Magistrate/Executive   Magistrate   it   is &nb..

In the result, we are of the opinion that for  proving   a   dying   declaration recorded   by  a person/Magistrate/Executive   Magistrate   it   is   not essential   requirement   of   law   that   the   recorder should   repeat,   while   deposing   before   the   Court, the   contents   of   the   declaration   in   the   words spoken   by   the   deceased   as   to   the   cause   of   his death   or   as   to   any   of   the   circumstances   of   the transaction   which   resulted   in   his   death. In other words, the recorder of a dying declaration need   not   depose   before   the   Court,   in   the   words spoken   by   the   deceased,   about   the name/description,   and   the   act   of   the   accused, which   resulted   in   his   death.     Accordingly,  the question referred to this Full Bench is answered in negative

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.6.2007, passed by the trial Court in SC 3-J/VII/06 (S.T.No.06/07), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs v. Kewal Krish..

For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 19.6.2007, passed by the trial Court in SC 3-J/VII/06 (S.T.No.06/07), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Vs v. Kewal Krishan alias Kalu, is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charged offences. He be released from jail, if not required in any other case. Amount of fine, if deposited by the accused, be refunded to him. Release warrants be prepared acordinlgy. 

Arms Act, 1959

Indian Penal Code, 1860