A prosecution cannot be initiated or sustained against an accused based solely on the voluntary statements or confessions of co-accused persons without independent corroborative evidence, as such statements are not substantive evidence.

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;

R2 SERVED)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CC.NO.26620/2018 DATED 25.06.2018 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE VI ACMM COURT, BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 476, 484, 120(b) R/W 34 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-accused No.4 is at the doors of this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.26620 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 476, 484, 120B r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Smt Reena R, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

A complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent, an officer of the BMTC alleging that certain persons are creating bogus bus passes in the names of disabled persons, which is causing huge loss to the Corporation. On the strength of the said complaint, a crime in Crime No. 133 of 2016 comes to be registered. The police conduct investigation and drop several persons as accused and draw several persons as accused. The petitioner is the one who comes while filing the charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the name of the petitioner did not figure while the complaint was registered nor in the crime. But for the first time, it comes up in the charge sheet, not on the merit of the matter, but on the voluntary statements rendered by accused Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel submits that there is no corroboration of the statements by any material with the prosecution and therefore the proceedings should be quashed.

5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions of the petitioner to contend that the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet and this was a cartel that was operating by taking bogus bus passes in the names of disabled persons, which undoubtedly caused lossses to the Corporation and therefore the petitioner should come out clean in a full blown trial.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts and the allegations are a matter of record. The petitioner is accused no. 4. The name of the petitioner admittedly did not spring in the complaint, did not also spring while filing the FIR which was in furtherance of the complaint, but springs for the first time while filing the charge sheet. It is no law that a name that does not figure in the FIR, should not come in the charge sheet, but, there should be material. The material in the case at hand, admittedly is the voluntary statements of accused nos.1 and 2 who pinned down the petitioner to be involved in the said act of preparing bogus bus passes, in the names of disabled persons.

8. The Petitioner himself a disabled person who is the beneficiary of the said pass is now hauled for conspiri