Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 234
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BENCH AT INDORE
Virender Singh, J.
Aashish - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Revision No.804 of 2020
Decided On : 25-02-2020
Shri Rishiraj Trivedi, Learned Counsel, for the Appellant; Shri Sandeep Mehta, Learned Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent/State
The central legal point established in the judgment is the inadmissibility of evidence that does not lead to recovery and the exercise of revisional power to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Headnote:
N.D.P.S. Act - Framing of Charges - Section 8(c)/15(c) read with Section 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and Sections 471 and 473 of IPC - AIR 1964 SC 1184, (2004) 10 SCC 657, (2013) 12 SCC 17, (2011) 11 SCC 724, AIR 2018 SC 5264, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1563, 1992 SCC OnLine Ker 441, 2000 SCC OnLine MP 442, 1993 Cr.L.J. 1499, 2012 (4) MPHT 116, MCRC 837/2014, 2015 (1) MPHT 265, MANU/MP/0976/ 2016, MCRC 10904/ 2017, MCRC 5452/2017, MCRC Dated 11th March 2019
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the framing of charges against him under N.D.P.S. Act and IPC based on inadmissible evidence, including the disclosure statement of a co-accused and his own confessional statement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the evidence against the petitioner was inadmissible and amounted to an abuse of process of law, leading to the quashing of the charges and the discharge of the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of evidence, abuse of process of law, and the framing of charges based on inadmissible evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that information or disclosure that does not lead to any recovery is inadmissible as evidence against co-accused persons, and the revisional power should be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the charges framed against the petitioner were quashed, and the petitioner was discharged. The prosecution against other co-accused persons was to continue.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 13.12.2019 of framing charges against him under Section 8(c)/15(c) read with Section 29 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and Sections 471 and 473 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in short is that acting on a secret input, the police chased a Mahindra Scorpio Jeep on Sarsod Guradiyashah road between 15:00 to 20:45 hours on 22.08.2018. The occupant managed to escape leaving behind the jeep. On search five bags containing total 100 kg poppy straw were recovered from the Jeep. At the time of seizure, number plate showing registration No.MP-09-BD-0102 was affixed on the Jeep. On search, one more fiber number plate showing registration No.MP-04-EH-8750 was found in the Jeep. On the basis of engine and chassis number, the police traced the registered owner of the jeep and arrested Nanalal on 13.03.2019 and booked him for trafficking illicit poppy straw. He was interrogated. He revealed that he got prepared fake number plates from the shop of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is also booked by the police. Charge-sheet was filed against both the persons.
3. The Trial Court has framed charges against the petitioner under Section 8(c)/15(c) read with Section 29 of N.D.P.S. Act and Section 471 and 473 of IPC.
4. Challenge is made on the ground that the petitioner is impleaded in the array of the accused only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Nanalal recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is totally inadmissible against the petitioner. Further, the police have recorded memorandum statement of disclosure in the form of confession of the petitioner, but this is also inadmissible in the eyes of law and cannot be used against him, either to prosecute or to convict him. Even the charges cannot be framed on such evidence.
5. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he runs a car decor shop in the name and style of Sai Car Decor in the city of Jawara. He usually makes number plates of the car, as per instructions of the customer, without knowing them personally. Besides, there is no evidence in this case, except the memorandum statement of the co-accused or the confessional statement of the petitioner himself that the recovered number plate was prepared by the petitioner and such statements, as argued above, are totally inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, prosecution of the petitioner is abuse of authority of law. The learned Trial Court has erred in framing the charges against him on the basis of such inadmissible evidence, therefore, the order framing charges be set aside and the petitioner be discharged.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has fairly admitted that there is no other inculpatory evidence against the petitioner, except the memorandum statement of co-accused or the confessional statement of the petitioner himself, both recorded under Section 27 of Evidence Act.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor further drew my attention towards seizure memo showing that a radium black colour tape, an ACP number plate and a cutter were seized from the petitioner, but fairly admitted that these are usual articles, which can be found in any car decor shop.
8. The law is now well settled that the information given by the co-accused is inadmissible if the same does not lead to any recovery. In a string of judgment right from the preindependence era, the Courts have settled this proposition of law. We can refer some of the judgments passed in Harichara Kurmi and Jogia Hajam reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184 , Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2004) 10 SCC 657 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 597 , State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 17: 2013 SCC OnLine SC 230 (page 36), Mustkeem Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2011) 11 SCC 724 , Asar Mohammad and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2018 SC 5264 , Kusal Toppo Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1563 , Valiyaveetil Ashraf v. State, S.H.O. Ko
