JUDGEMENT
Ved Prakesh Sharma, J. -
(1.)This is a petition under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'The Code') praying for quashment of First Information Report registered at Police Station - Hatod, Distt. - Indore bearing Crime No. 148/15 for an offence under Sec. 34(2) of the M.P.Excise Act, 1915. A charge-sheet in the matter has been filed against the petitioner and two other persons namely, Ishwar and Tungnath.
(2.)The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that Ishwar and Tungnath were apprehended by police on 11/06/16 and 63 bulk litres of country made liquor was recovered from their possession. It is further the case of the prosecution that on interrogation, Ishwar and Tumnath made a disclosure under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to ASI N.S. Yadav in presence of Panch witnesses Monu and Jitendra that they have procured/purchased the illicit liquor from the present petitioner and that they can lead the investigating agency to the shop of the petitioner. Thereafter, these two persons had taken Shri N.S. Yadav to the shop of the petitioner. Resultantly, he has been charge-sheeted along with Ishwar and Tungnath.
(3.)The contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that solitary evidence of disclosure under Sec. under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be a basis to prosecute a co-accused. It is further submitted that unless a fact is discovered pursuant to a disclosure made under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act, such disclosure statement has no evidential value. It is also contended that evidence on the basis of disclosure made under Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act can be used only against the maker of the statement and none else. Reliance in this regard is placed on a number of authorities including those referred to in the petition itself.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.