| Headnote |
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Petition filed by appellant challenging the complaint and the order passed by Sessions Court rejecting his prayer to discharge him of offence under ss.489B and 489C IPC – Prosecution case was that accused no.1 to 3 were selling fake foreign currency note as original at public place – When they were caught, they stated that they collected notes from the residence of accused no.4-appellant – Appellant contended before Sessions judge that apart from the statements of co-accused, there was no material to proceed against him and that only on the basis of statement of co-accused, no case could be made out against him and that the statement made by co-accused was barred by s.25 of Evidence Act – Sessions judge held that whole recovery procedure was made in the presence of panchas and rejected the plea for discharge as there was some evidence against him – High Court held that it was premature to say anything in respect of credibility of the statement made by the Investigating Officer in the complaint at that stage and it could be considered only at the trial and that the statements of co-accused recorded by the Investigating Officer showed prima facie involvement of the appellant in the offence and no case was made out to interfere under s.482 – On appeal, held: At the stage of framing the charge, the Court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial – In the instant case, the co-accused were absconding – The State did not seriously dispute the fact that there was no recovery from the residence of the appellant of the counterfeit notes and that there was no other material on the basis of which even a strong suspicion could be aroused – The mandate of the law requires to free the appellant from being proceeded against – Therefore, order passed by the Sessions Judge framing the charge against the appellant is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to discharge – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.489B and 489C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.161, 162 – Inadmissibility of statement made before the Police Officer – Held: Bar under s.162 operates in regard to the statement made to a Police Officer in between two points of time, viz., from the beginning of the investigation till the termination of the same – In a case where statement containing not a confession but admission, which is otherwise relevant and which is made before the investigation commences, may be admissible – What amounts to an admission can be used against the maker of the admission or his representative in interest – As to what constitutes an admission is to be found in s.17 of the Evidence Act – Being an admission, it may be admissible under the Evidence Act provided that it meets the requirements of admission as defined in s.17 of the Evidence Act – However, even if it is an admission, if it is made in the course of investigation under the Cr.PC to a Police Officer, then, it will not be admissible under s.162 as it clearly prohibits the use of statement made to a Police Officer under s.161 except for the purpose which is mentioned therein – Statement given under s.161, even if relevant, as it contains an admission, would not be admissible, though an admission falling short of a confession which may be made otherwise, may become substantive evidence – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.17.Evidence Act, 1872: s.25 – Confession made to police officer – Admissibility of – Held: s.25 of the Evidence Act renders inadmissible a confession made to a Police Officer – It declares in fact that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence – When a person is named as an accused in First Information Report, he would stand in the shoes of an accused person – A person who stands in the shoes of the accused being named in the First Information Report, can be examined by the Police Officer under s.161 of the Cr.PC.– A person who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eyes of law, can indeed be questioned and the statement is taken by the Police Officer – A confession, which is made to a Police Officer, would be inadmissible having regard to s.25 of the Evidence Act – A confession, which is vitiated under s.24 of the Evidence Act would also be inadmissible – Even if a statement contains admission, the statement being one under s.161, it would immediately attract the bar under s.162 of the Cr.PC. – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.161 and 162. |
