1. Whether the confessional statement of an accused is receivable in evidence is the question that falls for determination in this petition.

2. The outline facts leading to the above question are that on 13.12.2014, CW-1/PW.2 the Assistant Commissioner of Police, lodged a first information in Gangammanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru alleging that on the information received by him, he and his team of officials Sri. Balraj & Sri. Prakash-Police Inspectors, after satisfying themselves regarding the identity of @shami-witness being the same person as the one who was residing at No.14, Sujatha Building, ‘A’ Block, 2nd Main, S.M. Road, Jalahalli West, Bengaluru West, Bengaluru, conducted a raid and subjected Mr. Biswas to enquires. During enquiries, Mr. Biswas confessed to the fact that he was the one who was responsible for creating and operation of the twitter handle @shami-witness.

3. Based on his complaint a FIR in Crime No.218/2014 came to be registered for the offences punishable under section 125 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC"), sections 3, 13, 18 and 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short “UAPA Act”) and section 66F of Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short “IT Act”). After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner/accused under sections 13(1)(b), 18B and 39 of UAPA Act and section 66F of IT Act and sections 121, 124A, 125, 153A and 505 of IPC.

4. On securing the petitioner and after hearing his counsel, charges were framed against him for the above offences.

5. In the course of trial, the informant (CW.1) was examined as PW.2. In his examination, CW-1/PW-2 intended to depose before the Court regarding the information given by the petitioner/accused to him and other police personnel on 13.12.2014. The same was opposed by the petitioner/accused on the ground that such statement amounted to confession and is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. In view of the said objection, learned Trial Judge deferred the chief-examination and after affording an opportunity of hearing to both sides, by order dated 19.11.2016 rejected the objection raised by the petitioner with the following order:-

“PW.2 is permitted to depose regarding the information allegedly given by the accused to him on 13.12.2014, when he had gone to the house of the accused and took him to his custody subject to objection raised by the accused i.e., its admissibility, to be decided at the time of final judgment.”

6. Pursuant to the above order, PW2 was further examined-in-chief on 06.12.2016 and he deposed as under:-

“While enquiring the accused, he informed that he was handling twitter account under the name of ‘@Shami witness’.

7. The order dated 19.11.2016 and the offending portion of the evidence of CW-1/PW-2 as extracted above are challenged in this petition.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP.

9. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of AGHNOO NAGESIA vs. STATE OF BIHAR reported in AIR 1966 SC 119, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that by rejecting the objection raised by the defence, the trial court has allowed to come on record the confessional statement of the petitioner/accused contrary to the bar contained under section 25 of the Evidence Act. The procedure followed by the trial court has caused grave prejudice to the accused in his defence and hence he has sought to quash the impugned order dated 19.11.2016 and the consequent evidence recorded by the trial court on 06.12.2016 touching the alleged confessional statement of the accused.

10. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that the trial court has followed the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & Another, (2001) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 1. The objection of the petitioner is taken into consideration and the same is overruled by assigning proper reasons. No injustice is caused to the