A co-accused's confession is admissible against other co-accused who are jointly facing trial for the same offense under Section 30 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

Subhendu Samanta, J. - This is an application under Section 482 of read with 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing a proceedings in connection with G.R. no.1267 of 2017 arising out of Domjur P.S. Case No.171 of 2017 dated 3.3.2017 under Section 420/406/381/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah(Sadar).

2. The brief fact of the case is that on the basis of a written complaint of one Rohit Chowdhury, Director of T.C. Motors Private Limited Domjur P.S. Case No.171 of 2017 was initiated against one Surajit Bej. The statement of the complaint in a nutshell, that Surajit Bej is one of the employees of the T.C. Motors Private Limited in the post of Insurance in-charge, he had fraudulently siphoned of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and mis-appropriated the said amount from the period of March 2016 till the date of complaint. It was alleged in the complaint that Surajit Bej was entrusted by the company to collect premium amount from the customers for the company and deposit the same either to the Insurance Company or to the complainant company. He collected the premium amount from different customers and dishonestly mis-appropriated the funds for personal used without being it deposited either to the Insurance Company or the complainant company.

3. During the course of investigation the accused Surajit Bej was arrested and during his police remand he made a confessional statement that he has committed the crime in conspiracy with the present petitioner nos.1 and 2. After conclusion of investigation the charge-sheet has been submitted against the Surajit Bej and the present petitioners showing the petitioners to be absconder.

4. It is the fact of the petitioners that the present petitioners were not at all involved in the alleged offence. Actually, the petitioners had informed the de facto complainant regarding mal-practice of Surajit Bej for which the de facto complainant has lodged the complaint. The principle accused Surajit Bej after having knowledge of such fact committed the false statement before the police alleging the present petitioners to be involved in the offence. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court for quashing the proceeding.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted before this Court that the police has submitted charge-sheet after conclusion of the investigation against the Surajit Bej and the present petitioners. The allegation of syphoning money by the present petitioners cannot be proved by the prosecution as the police has failed to collect any material regarding involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged offence. During the course of investigation police has conducted search and seizure but nothing has been seized from the possession of the present petitioners to substantiate the alleged offence against them.

6. He further pointed out that only on the basis of confessional statement made by the co-accused the present petitioners were charged. By virtue of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Budharmal Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1998)7SCC 337, framing of charge against accused persons only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused is not proper.

7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party raised strong objection and submitted before this Court that the charge has been submitted against the present petitioners by showing the petitioners to be absconder. The warrant of arrest was issued against them. They did not appear before the police authority or before the trial court but prefer this instant revision to avoid the process of the Court. They adopted a mala fide practice by filing this instant quashing application, they try to avoid the direction of the learned Court below. He further argued that at this juncture sufficient materials are there in the Case Diary. The materials lying in the case diary shall be taken to be true at this juncture. This is not fit case to be qu