IMPORTANT POINT
Prima facie, the court cannot act upon the confessional statement of the co-accused unless and until the said statement finds corroboration in material particulars by independent evidence.

JUDGMENT

M.K. Chawla, J. - On 13-2-1986, the Additional Commissioner of Police (Administration) forwarded a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for filing the same in the Court of a Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi to initiate proceedings against Baldev Kumar and Hari Dayal for offences under sections 419/420/468/471 I.P.C. In brief the allegation is that accused Baldev Kumar handed over a forged passport No. 1773337 of one Amrik Singh, to Hari Dayal, his co-accused on or before 15-8-1985 and charged a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Hari Dayal was asked to give his name as Amrik Singh to the immigration staff at the Palam Airport. On scrutiny the passport with Hari Dayal was found to be a forged one. During interrogation Hari Dayal disclosed the circumstances under, which he was duped by Baldev Raj. Both the accused were arrested at the Airport. After completing the investigation the challan was filed.

2. Before taking cognizance, the learned lower court noticed that the Dame of Baldev Kumar ill shown in column No. 2 as well as in column No. 4. From the report, he could riot make out as to how the name of Baldev Kumar has been placed in column No. 2. In order to remove his doubt, the I.O. of the case was summoned to clarify the position. On the next day, the statement of Shri Om Parkash, Investigating Officer was re-corded. He stated that originally in the report under section 171 Cr. P.C. both the accused persons namely, Hari Dayal and Baldev Kumar were shown in column No. 4, but subsequently it transpired that there was no sufficient evidence against accused Baldev Kumar. His name was thus scored off from column NO.4 and shown in column No. 2. However, as this fact was not mentioned in the report itself, he sought time to enable him to file a supplementary report. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate 'granted the permission. On the adjourned hearing, the learned A.P.P. submitted that under sect ion 173(3) a supplementary challan can only be filed, when after filing the challan in Court, the I.O. obtains further additional evidence in respect of an offence. This is not the case here. There is already more than sufficient evidence against accused Baldev Kumar and as such the supplementary challan cannot be entertained. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate after hearing the A.P.P. and the counsel for the accused, reviewed his previous order and refused to accept the supplementary challan.

3. On consideration of the report and the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. during the course of the investigation, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate concluded that the accused Baldev Kumar appears to be a kingpin and the brain behind the illegal activities falling within the purview of offences punishable under sections 420/109 read with sections 417/419 I.P.C. Accused Had Dayal was also held liable for the offence under sections 417/419 IP.C. Accordingly, the charges under the said offences were framed against both the accused. Hart Dayal accused pleaded guilty to the charge. After the consideration of report of Probation Officer, he was given the benefit of section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act and released on probation on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- and to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year.

4. Against the order of charge, Baldev Kumar filed a revision petition in the court of the Sessions Judge, Delhi, Shri S.C. Jain, Addl. Sessions Judge on perusal of the report and on consideration of the arguments did not find any illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial court. He dismissed the revision petition and sent the case back to the court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trial. It is against this order Shri Baldev Kumar has filed the petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for the quashing of the impugned order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi.

5. The main contention of the learned couns