Judgment : The accused in C.C.No. 246 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram has filed this petition under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. 2. The respondent has filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Sec. 411, I.P.C. on the allegations that one Raju had committed theft of a gold thali chain that in his confession he pointed out the accused herein as the person who received the stolen property from him, that the said stolen property, viz., gold thali chain weighing 7 1/4 sovereign was seized under a mahazar, that Raju had committed an offence under Sec. 379, I.P.C. that the accused had received the said 7 1/4 sovereign of gold thali chain for Rs. 4,000 dishonestly and hence, he is liable to be punished for an offence under Sec. 411, I.P.C. 3. Mr.V. Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that only 5 witnesses were cited in the charge sheet, that out of whom witnesses 1 and 2 were witnesses for seizure of the gold thali chain from the accused that witness No. 3 is the person who lost the said jewel and that witnesses 4 and 5 are the investigating officers, that there are no materials to show that the accused have purchased the gold thali chain dishonestly,, knowing or having reason to believe that it is stolen property. I have heard Mr.E. Raja, the learned Government Advocate, on the above aspects. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels. Mr.E. Raja pointed out that witness Nos.1 and 2 refer to the admission made by the accused that he purchased the property knowing it to be the stolen property and thus, there is a material for laying the prosecution for offence under Sec. 411, I.P.C. Mr.V. Gopinath, would repel this submission by stating that the said statement is not admissible in evidence because it was made to a police officer. He would submit that though the accused was not an accused at that time and that this admission was made at the time when the case for offence under Sec. 379 was investigated, still it is inadmissible in evidence when this accused is being prosecuted for offence under Sec. 411, I.P.C. He would rely upon State of U.P. v. Deoman, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1125. In it, the Apex Court has laid as follows: "The ban which is partial under Sec. 24 and complete under Sec. 25 applies equally whether or not the person against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal trial was at the time of making the confession in custody. For the ban to be effective the person need not have been accused of an offence when he made the confession. The expression, "accused person" in Sec. 24 and the expression "a person accused of any offence" have the same connotation, and describe the person against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal proceeding". Secs.24 and 25 referred to are Secs.24 and 25 of Evidence Act. In A. Nagema v. Bihar State, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 119, a confession to a police officer whether in the course of investigation or otherwise was considered. In it, it was held that Sec. 25 is imperative and a confession made to a police officer under no circumstances is admissible in evidence against the accused. The section covers a confession made when he was free and not in police custody, as also the one made before any investigation has begun. The expression "accused of any offence" covers a person accused of an offence at the trial whether or not he was accused of the offence when he made the confession. The above decision make it clear that this confession made by the accused herein, during the course of investigation, for offence under Sec. 379, I.P.C. is clearly inadmissible. Barring this evidence, no other evidence or materials are available in this case to proceed against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 411, I.P.C. and hence the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in C.C.No. 246 of 1990 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, shall stand quashed.