This is a revision case filed by the accused in Sessions Case No.170 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

2. During the pendency of the Sessions Case, the petitioners filed Criminal M.P. No.74 of 2008 under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking an order restraining the prosecution from examining a prosecution witness by name J.Jeevan Kumar and not to mark the alleged disclosure statement of A1 recorded by him on 14-06-2005.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

The deceased was an Executive Engineer. He retired from the service. He used to reside with his wife in his own house in Balaji Nagar, Kurnool. After the retirement, the deceased engaged A1 as his car driver. The deceased and his wife sold their lands and realized huge amounts, which were kept by them in a bank in the fixed deposits. A1 on coming to know about the huge amounts deposited in the bank, conspired with the other accused to abduct the deceased for a ransom. As per their plan, they hired an Ambassador Car at about 6.00 AM on 31-03-2005. A1 along with other accused drove to the rastha at Balaji Nagar through which the deceased used to go to the Officers' Club daily. They found the deceased coming. A1 to A4 drove the car by the side of the deceased. A4 enquired about the route to 'B' camp bus stop. The deceased agreed to show the 'B' camp bus stop. Accordingly, he entered the car. Soon after the deceased boarding the car, A1 to A3 dragged him to backside of the car, caught hold of his neck, gagged cloths in his mouth and tied a cloth around his mouth and eyes. When the deceased was struggling, A1 beat him with iron rod on his head and as a result of which, the deceased fell unconscious. Immediately, A1 administered an injunction. A1 to A4 drove the car to Silpa estate to keep the deceased in their captivity. They opened the gunny bag in which they kept the deceased and found the deceased in an unconscious state and later they found the deceased no more. They decided to dispose of the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly, they lead the dead body on the L.Banda railway- crossing road, after taking his gold rings, wristwatch and money purse. They also poured petrol and burnt the dead body with an intention to screen the evidence. As the deceased did not return back to the house and after searching for him, the wife of the deceased gave a complaint to the Police and a crime was registered as a man missing case. On conducting postmortem, it came to light that it was a homicidal death, therefore the Section of law was altered into Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. While the investigation is in progress, on 14-06-2005 at about 9 AM, A1 approached J.Jeevan Kumar, an Advocate, and disclosed to him how he committed the offence along with other accused. The said Advocate took A1 to the Sub-Inspector of Police and submitted a report.

4. The accused contended that Sri J.Jeevan Kumar is a practicing Advocate at Kurnool and the confession made by A1 before him is a professional communication between the client and an Advocate and confidential in nature, so it should not be disclosed by the Advocate to anybody, unless the accused himself gives an express consent for such disclosure. The evidence of Sri Jeevan Kumar is inadmissible under law and the same is against the principle laid down under Section 126 of the Evidence Act. The petitioners, therefore, sought for the relief of restraining the prosecution from examining the said Advocate. The lower Court, after hearing both parties, passed an order dismissing the said application.

5. The accused came with an application after examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the wife and daughter of the deceased. It is an undisputed fact that J.Jeevan Kumar is an Advocate. The accused was contending that A1 being the client disclosed many things to J.Jeevan Kumar and under Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, the information given to the Advocate is confidential and it is not adm