JUDGMENT : Arun Mishra, J. 1 The Revision has been preferred by the widow of the deceased raju Sonkar aggrieved by judgment dated 9.12.2000 passed by Addl. Sessions judge, Jabalpur in S. T. No.601/98 thereby acquitting the accused/respondents shamim Ahmad and Kailash Sonkar for commission of offence under section 302, 307 and 120-Bof IPC. 2 The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 12.2.1998 at about 7.30 am when Raju Sonkar started his car after putting the key, there was bomb blast, raju Sonkar wanted to go to the School to leave his son Sameer, daughter Medha and sister's son Shailu Sonkar. On hearing the noise of bomb blast wife of the deceased Raju Sonkar came and found smoke in the Maruti car, Raju Sonkar could not come out of driving seat whereas Sameer, Medha and Shailu Sonkar could come out of the car. Raju Sonkar was taken out of the car and was taken to victoria Hospital for treatment. Dr. A. K. Jain (PW-14) medically examined injuries of Raju Sonkar and submitted report (P-45 ). Raju Sonkar died due to the injuries during the course of treatment. Shailu @ Shailendra (PW-19) lodged report (P-48)on the basis of which offence was registered at P. S. Omti, after death of Raju sonkar marg (P-50) was registered, inquest (P-8) was done, autopsy was performed by Dr. Pramod Shrivastava (PW-2), report (P-52) was submitted. Pieces of bomb, blood stained and control soil shirt etc. were seized as per seizure memo (P-11 ). 3 Confessional statement (P-59) of accused Shamim was recorded under section 164 of Cr. P. C. by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Smt. Radha Sonkar (PW-39) on 18.8.1998 on the basis of which Shamim was arrested as per memo (P-62) at 6.00pm next day on 19.8.98 thereafter Shamim retracted the confession by submitting an application (D-4 ). During the course of investigation statement of Hair Narayan (PW-11) was recorded on 7.11.1998. Kailash Sonkar was also arrested as per arrest memo (P-65) on 5.10.1998. Certain articles, diary, Gupta, katta, telephone wire etc. were seized from the house of the accused Kailash sonkar as per seizure memo (P-6 ). With respect to repair of car bills, vouchers, receipts (P-13 to P-42) were seized as per memo (P-43), other documents relating to car name, job card etc. (P-53, P-54 and P-55) were also seized. Certain articles, diary, Gupta, katta, telephone wire etc. were seized from the house of the accused Kailash sonkar as per seizure memo (P-6 ). With respect to repair of car bills, vouchers, receipts (P-13 to P-42) were seized as per memo (P-43), other documents relating to car name, job card etc. (P-53, P-54 and P-55) were also seized. Articles were sent from the hospital as per memo (P-58) in the sealed packet. Sealed articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, the reports (P-66, P-68 and P-69)were submitted. 4 Accused Shamim was charged for commission of offence under section 302 and 307 of IPC and accused Kailash Sonkar was charged for commission of offence under section 120-B, read with section 302 and 307 IPC. 5 The accused abjured the guilt and contended that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Accused Shamim in addition took defence that police had detained him from 5.8.98, kept him in the custody and he used to be ill treated, repeatedly Police made inquiry from him who fitted the bomb in the car of the deceased and due to the pressure of the police and threat of administering the electric shock he had made confessional statement (P-59) before the Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate. It was not voluntary confession. His statement made in retraction application (D-4) was correct, he had not fitted the bomb in the car of the deceased Raju Sonkar on being asked by accused Kailash Sonkar, he was simply a motor mechanic and was not even knowing the work of electric wiring. Kailash Sonkar took the defence that he has been falsely implicated by the police in the case. He had made a public agitation in the year 1993 against Rakshpal yadav for beating Raju Khatique who used to reside in the locality, he was killed by the police in the custody, since he was the pioneer of the agitation, he had been falsely implicated by the police in the instant case. He had also filed a private complaint against the Police station officer in charge Jaggi and Rakshpal Singh, that was the reason he had been falsely implicated in the case by the police. He was enjoying good relationship with the deceased Raju Sonkar. He had also filed a private complaint against the Police station officer in charge Jaggi and Rakshpal Singh, that was the reason he had been falsely implicated in the case by the police. He was enjoying good relationship with the deceased Raju Sonkar. Earlier there was an incident involving Raju Sonkar in which his elder brother Lakhan Sonkar had deposed, after one month of that his brother Lakhan and sister's son Anand sonkar were murdered of which trial was pending. There was yet another litigation pending of Devraj Brush Company against Raju Sonkar and his family members, thus he was innocent, there was no motive for him to commit murder of Raju sonkar. 6 The Trial Court has found that Raju Sonkar died due to the injuries sustained in the bomb blast. Bomb was fitted in his car and connected to the ignition key. as soon as he started the car there was blast, due to that Raju Sonkar died. Shailu sonkar, his sister's son sustained injuries. Statement of Hari Narayan (PW-11)has been discarded by the court below. Earlier on 11.2.1999 the witness was declared hostile. In a revision filed before this Court it was directed that his statement should be recorded afresh, on being re-examined he has supported the prosecution case. It is also found that a sum of Rs.24,000/- was paid by the complainant/prosecution to Hair Narayan (PW-11) to make him a witness. The money was deposited in the Bank account of Hair Narayan (PW- ll)onll.2.1999, the date on which he was initially examined in the court and was declared hostile. The confessional statement of Shamim Ahmad has been held to be inadmissible in evidence by the Trial Court on the ground that oath was administered to accused shamim Ahmad by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. It has also been held that confessional statement could not be said to have been made voluntarily without pressure or fear. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate did not comply with the safeguards before recording the confessional statement of the accused. Prior information was not given to the accused that confessional statement could be used against him. The court was also kept in the dark by the Police whether Shamim was an accused or going to be a witness in the case. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate did not comply with the safeguards before recording the confessional statement of the accused. Prior information was not given to the accused that confessional statement could be used against him. The court was also kept in the dark by the Police whether Shamim was an accused or going to be a witness in the case. As there was no evidence against the accused Shamim it is unnatural that he would have admitted his guilt in a categoric manner by making confessional statement (P-59) before the Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate. He was arrested on 19.8.1998, after his statement was recorded on 18.8.1998. After arrest when he was produced before the court he had retracted the confession by filing application (D-4 ). The police was present outside the court when the confessional statement was recorded, thus the facts mentioned in retraction application (D-4) have been found to be probable. The confessional statement could not have been used for the purpose of fastening the guilt, any statement made by the witness could be used for the purpose of contradiction or omission. The other evidence has also been discarded. Public agitation was launched against the police as to the investigation made in a case. It was not mentioned by Raju Sonkar in the complaint (P-61) that Kailash Sonkar did not hand over the cheques to him, thus motive was not proved. The enmity on the ground of not handing over the cheque was an after thought. Initially doubt was raised on persons of Devraj Brush Company. Both the accused have been acquitted. Dissatisfied thereby the widow Smt. Madhu Sonkar of the deceased raju Sonkar has filed the instant criminal revision. 7 Shri Manish Datt, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has submitted that the trial was not properly conducted by the public prosecutor namely G. D. Garg (PW-6 ). The public prosecutor did not examine the material witnesses and was examined ultimately as defence witness, thus trial was radically defective. Intervention was made by this court in Criminal Revision No.1142/99, in which an order was passed on 8.10.99 for recalling of the witnesses, it was also directed that regularly appointed public prosecutor to conduct the matter, even then Shri g. D. Garg appeared in the case. In another Cr. Intervention was made by this court in Criminal Revision No.1142/99, in which an order was passed on 8.10.99 for recalling of the witnesses, it was also directed that regularly appointed public prosecutor to conduct the matter, even then Shri g. D. Garg appeared in the case. In another Cr. Revision No.1133/00, this court directed as per order dated 19.9.2000 that matter should be conducted properly and seriously at the behest of the State by modifying the order dt.7.7.2000, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.601/98, it was also directed to examine Dr. S. Sharma and Shobha Shandilya as witness of the prosecution and to proceed further in accordance with law in disposing of the sessions trial. Counsel has also submitted that police was not making fair investigation in the case, consequently a writ petition W. P. No.1698/98 was filed, in which it was directed that if the petitioner makes a fresh representation stating all the facts to the Director General of Police within 10 days from date of order, the same shall be looked into and the decision shall be taken within six weeks therefrom which should be intimated to the petitioner. Thus, the counsel has submitted that retrial be ordered. Shri Manish Datt, has further submitted that the crucial witness in the case Han Narayan (PW-11) was paid the money on the date on which he was examined by the prosecution in the Court i. e. on 11.2.1999, on this date a sum of Rs.24,000/- was credited in his account as apparent from the Pass Book (Ex. D-16) proved by Aditya Pandey (DW-4) Asst. Manager, state Bank of India, Tularam Chowk, Jabalpur. As the witness turned hostile on the date on which the aforesaid amount was paid to him, it was not paid by the prosecution to the accused so as to turn him hostile but by accused Kailash Sonkar, thereafter Han Narayan preferred W. P. No.2237/99 before this Court in which it was stated that due to fear he was unable to make correct statement in the Court on 11.2.1999, the date on which he was declared hostile by the prosecution. It was directed in the writ petition that Hair Narayan should make such a prayer before the Trial Court itself at the first instance. Thereafter an application was filed before the Trial Court for re-examination of Hair Narayan, that was rejected on 12.7,99. It was directed in the writ petition that Hair Narayan should make such a prayer before the Trial Court itself at the first instance. Thereafter an application was filed before the Trial Court for re-examination of Hair Narayan, that was rejected on 12.7,99. Against the said order Smt. Madhu Sonkar preferred a Criminal revision No.1142/99 in which recall of Hari Narayaa was also ordered iii the special circumstances of the case. Prayer for recall of Smt. Madhu Sonkar was also allowed. Apart from that it was ordered that regularly appointed public prosecutor of experience to conduct the prosecution in such a serious case rather than an adhoc public prosecutor. The finding recorded by the Trial Court that Hair narayan was paid the money by the prosecution/complainant is, thus, perverse and against the ordinary course of conduct. If money was paid in November as suggested by accused, it would not have been deposited on 11.2.1999 in the S. B. account of Hair Narayan (PW-11 ). The statement of Hair Narayan could not have been discarded merely on the ground that there was delay in recording his police statement, as police was not making fair investigation, public agitation had to be made even Chief Minister had to be approached for fair investigation. No explanation has been obtained of the Investigating Officer for not recording statement of Hair Narayan for several months together. In the circumstances hair Narayan himself approached the police by way of filing an application, thereafter his statement was recorded by the police. The Investigating Officers had also been changed in the case as initial investigating officer did not investigate the case properly. Counsel has also stated that the Court below has erred in holding that the cheques were not handed over to accused Kailash Sonkar. The finding is perverse and contrary to the facts mentioned in the partition deed (P-60), in which it was mentioned that the cheques were handed over to Kailash sonkar. The cheques had been retained by Kailash Sonkar, they were not handed over to the deceased Raju Sonkar inspire of his various demands, which resulted into the strained relationship and constituted motive for commission of offence by the accused Kailash Sonkar. The finding to the contrary recorded by the Trial court is perverse. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the confessional statement recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. by the Addl. The finding to the contrary recorded by the Trial court is perverse. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the confessional statement recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. by the Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate Smt. Radha Sonkar (PW-39) has been illegally held to be inadmissible by the Trial Court. Merely by the fact that oath was administered, the entire evidentiary value of confessional statement made by the accused Shamim Ahmad was not wiped out. The safeguards were duly observed before recording the confessional statement as apparent from the note at the beginning and at the end of the statement. He has also submitted that the Trial Court has accepted the statement of Investigating Officer M. K. Pachori (PW-37) that accused was interrogated on 16.8.1998 and was let off on 17.8.1998 in the evening, thus the counsel has submitted that the confessional statement recorded next day, was without any fear or pressure of the police as accused Shamim Ahmad was not in the custody and was allowed by the police to freely move, he had full liberty of having deliberation and consultation not only with the family members but he was also free to obtain legal advice before making confessional statement next day before the Court. As prosecution was launched by the police obviously police personnel's were required to bring the accused Shamim Ahmad to the Court for the purpose of recording his confessional statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. as police was not sure that accused was going to make any statement before the court also. He was arrested and made an accused after he had made confessional statement before the Court. The confession was recorded by the Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate on 18.8.1998 and arrest was made on 19.8.1998 after he has confessed the guilt before the Court. Thus the counsel has submitted that in view of the aforesaid statement of M. K. Pachori (PW-37), it could not be said that when confessional statement of accused Shamim Ahmad was recorded, he was under the threat of the police. The Counsel has further submitted that the Trial court has erred in holding that the accused was not told by the Magistrate that statement made by him could be used against him as apparent from the bottom note and initial note made at the beginning of the statement under section 164 of cr. The Counsel has further submitted that the Trial court has erred in holding that the accused was not told by the Magistrate that statement made by him could be used against him as apparent from the bottom note and initial note made at the beginning of the statement under section 164 of cr. P. C. the contrary finding recorded by the Trial Court, is incorrect. The counsel has further submitted that it was not the case of the accused that he was induced by the police to make the statement that he was going to be pardoned and was being made witness in the case. If it was the case, it should have been stated either in the retracted confessional application (D-4) or in the statement made by the accused before the Court under section 313 of Cr. P. C. The counsel has further submitted that merely by the fact that the police personnel who produced the accused in the Court, was outside the Court, it could not be said that the accused was kept in the fear of police as in each and every case it is only the. police who produces the accused in the Court, thus it could not have been inferred that the accused was kept in the fear of police particularly when he was not arrested and was allowed to go home and was brought under summon to the court for the purpose of recording his confessional statement on 18.8.1998. The summon was served on 17.8.1998, a day before his confessional statement was recorded. Mere failure to comply with the High Court Rules and subsection 5 of section 164 could not have rendered the confession inadmissible. The confession can be made at any time. Counsel has further submitted that in case of any defect in recording of confession is curable under section 463 Cr. P. C. even retracted confession if found reliable can be made the basis of conviction for which he has relied upon several decision to be referred later. He has further submitted that the confession need not be signed as the confessional statement was admittedly made. Merely failure to obtain signatures on confessional statement, was not an illegality. P. C. even retracted confession if found reliable can be made the basis of conviction for which he has relied upon several decision to be referred later. He has further submitted that the confession need not be signed as the confessional statement was admittedly made. Merely failure to obtain signatures on confessional statement, was not an illegality. He has submitted that signatures of the accused were obtained, even otherwise if signatures were not obtained, as accused had admitted that he had made confessional statement before the ACJM, that would not have vitiated the confessional statement recorded by the Addl. CJM. Counsel has further submitted that the material aspects have been ignored and overlooked by the court, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. Acceptance of money has been conveniently ignored and overlooked while discussing the evidentiary value of Hair Narayan (PW-11) and in later part of the judgment passing reference has been made that the version of accused appears to be proper that money was paid by the complainant/prosecution. Court has not gone into this aspect deliberately which was a material circumstance against accused and if necessary inquiry should have been made by the Trial Court into this aspect who actually paid the money which was credited into the account of witness Hari Narayan (PW-11) on the date on which he had deposed in the Court on 11.2.1999 when he did not support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile. Counsel has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Zahira Habibulla h. Sheikh V/s. State of Gujarat - 2004 AIR SCW 2325; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another - Vs. State of Gujarat and others - 2005 (4) SCC 292 and Zahira habibullah Sheikh and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others - 2005 (4)SCC 294 . Counsel has prayed that the enquiry be directed to be conducted with regard to transaction of money. Statement of Smt. Madhu Sonkar has been, illegally discarded with respect to various aspect of the case. There was motive for accused Kailash Sonkar for commission of offence, as he was retaining the cheques- and his intention was not to return back the cheques to Raju Sonkar (deceased) inspire of several demands made by him. Statement 6f Addl. CJM Smt. Radha Sonkar has also not been appreciated. There was motive for accused Kailash Sonkar for commission of offence, as he was retaining the cheques- and his intention was not to return back the cheques to Raju Sonkar (deceased) inspire of several demands made by him. Statement 6f Addl. CJM Smt. Radha Sonkar has also not been appreciated. The counsel has further submitted that the other finding recorded are, also perverse resulting into the miscarriage of justice in the instant case. 8 Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Shri Manish Mishra on behalf of accused Kailash Sonkar has submitted that within the parameter of scope of interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 397 and 401 of Cr. P. C. no case for interference is made out in this revision. It is only in the case of glaring defect or point of law, a flagrant miscarriage of justice or material evidence has been ignored or overlooked, that interference can be made. Mere error of judgment is not enough. In the revisional jurisdiction the Court does not ordinarily interfere. The trial was held properly. Shri G. D. Garg was appointed public prosecutor in the year 1993 and continued up to the year May, 1999 as public prosecutor. Due to change of Government Shri G. D. Garg was discontinued in May, 1999. He was asked to continue with the prosecution as per provision of section 2 (4) Cr. RC. by Mr. Ahmad, he was authorised in writing, thus he was competent to appear and conduct the case. Trial was not conducted by incompetent person. The statement made under section 164 Cr. RC. being a public document, it was not necessary to examine Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Smt. Radha Sonkar (PW-39) as such she was not examined, thus it could not be said that Shri G. D. Garg did not conduct trial properly. Dr. S. Sharma (PW-4) and Shobha Shandilya (PW-41) were not cited as witness. It was not necessary to prove the negative fact that no injuries were on the person of Shamim Ahmad when he was medically examined after recording confessional statement on 18.8.1998. It was not necessary for the prosecution to adduce the evidence to prove negative fact of absence of injury, thus it could not be said that Mr. Garg misconducted by not examining the aforesaid witnesses. It was not necessary for the prosecution to adduce the evidence to prove negative fact of absence of injury, thus it could not be said that Mr. Garg misconducted by not examining the aforesaid witnesses. The prosecution made full effort to adduce the evidence against the accused, even if there was some negligence, was overcome by re-examination of witnesses, hence no miscarriage of justice had been caused in the instant case. There was absolutely no motive for Kailash sonkar, he was previously M. L. A. from Jabalpur and he has lost his brother and sister's son when Raju Sonkar was earlier attacked. He has also submitted that earlier a doubt was cast on other persons. He has also referred to documents (P-60) partition deed dated 1.8.97 and report (P-61) lodged by the deceased. Counsel has further submitted that accused Shamim was not arrested, oath was administered to him, accused Shamim Ahmad appears to have been induced to make the confessional statement by not telling him the consequences of the statement which he was going to make. Once oath was administered, the confessional statement was rendered inadmissible. Counsel has further submitted that Shamim Ahmad was examined as a witness. It appears that police was not sure whether. Shamim ahmad was going to be a witness or accused in the case. The statement (P-59)was recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 Cr. P. C. in the capacity of shamim Ahmad being a witness in the case, later on he was arrested and made an accused on the next day. The confessional statement was inadmissible evidence as statement made by the witness, could not have been used against him except in the offence of forgery. By administering the oath accused was kept under the fear of oath. He has referred to various decisions of Supreme Court, Privy Council and High Court to be referred later. Counsel has further submitted that when a particular mode has been prescribed for recording the statement, that mode cannot be departed to and other modes are excluded. Counsel has further submitted that even if the confessional statement is held to be inadmissible as against Shamim ahmad, it could not be used as evidence against Kailash Sonkar, it has only corroborative value. There being no evidence against the accused Kailash Sonkar, his acquittal by the Court below is proper. Counsel has further submitted that even if the confessional statement is held to be inadmissible as against Shamim ahmad, it could not be used as evidence against Kailash Sonkar, it has only corroborative value. There being no evidence against the accused Kailash Sonkar, his acquittal by the Court below is proper. Conduct of a co-accused cannot be co-related with the conduct of another co-accused. The statement made by Smt. Radha Sonkar, ACJM as to recording of statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. cannot be utilized so as to prove the confession as oral evidence cannot prove it. Counsel has also submitted that Chapter 3 of Criminal Rules and Orders of the high Court Rules was not followed. He has also referred to Sec.105 and 106 of the Evidence Act to contend that in the instant case burden of the accused stood discharged from the evidence on record and the circumstances projected at the time of recording the confessional statement. Shamim Ahmad was induced to make confession (P-59) under the belief that he was going to be pardoned and to be made a witness, thus the confessional statement was inadmissible under section 24 of the Evidence Act which provides that such a statement should be free of inducement, threat or promise before it is acted upon. 9 Counsel has further submitted that Hari Narayan (PW-11) has been rightly held to be unreliable witness. On 11.2.1999 when he was firstly examined in the court, he did not support the prosecution but again on 29.5.1999 when he was reexamined after the order passed by this Court, he has supported the prosecution case, money was paid to the witness by the prosecution/complainant to make him a witness. His statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded on 7.11.1998. The money was paid to witness in November, 1998, that was credited in the account of Hair Narayan on 11.2.1999, the date on which he deposed in court. As an after though Hair Narayan filed an application for recording his statement afresh. Considering the fact that his police statement was recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. after nine months of the incident, witness kept quite for nine months, he has filed application to the police for recording his statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. The witness cannot be said to be reliable. Considering the fact that his police statement was recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. after nine months of the incident, witness kept quite for nine months, he has filed application to the police for recording his statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. The witness cannot be said to be reliable. 10 Shri Ahadullah Usmani and Amanullah Usmani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 Shamim Ahmad have submitted that the confessional statement has been rightly discarded by the Court below. It was recorded as statement of witness, therefore, no reliance could be placed on it. Law has been correctly applied to the facts of the instant case with respect to confession by the Court below. Confession was made under the fear/threat of the police as police was beating the accused for the last several days and accused has stated that he was kept in confinement. There was threat of administering electric shock also meted out to the accused Shamim Ahmad. The accused was kept in police station up to the time of his arrest on 19.8.1998 by the police. The confession was retracted by filing application (D-4) dated 24.8.98 proved by v. B. Shukla (DW-9), the then CJM, Jabalpur. Confessional statement (P-59) is inadmissible as it was of a witness, therefore, it was not admissible for implicating the accused Shamim Ahmad. Statement of Hair Narayan has been rejected by the Trial Court for cogent reasons as he has changed his version and contradicted his statement (D-12) recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. It was not ascertained by ACJM before recording the confessional statement why he wanted to admit the guilt. It was also not ascertained whether he was in police custody. It was not made clear to Shamim Ahmad whether he was a witness or accused in the case. There was no evidence against the accused Shamim Ahmad, there was no reason for him to admit the guilt. It was under threat and fear of ill treatment that the confessional statement was made by the accused Shamim Ahmad. Statement was also not recorded in the form prescribed for recording the confessional statement. In the circumstances acquittal of the accused respondent Shamim ahmad calls for no interference within the scope of interference of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 11 Shri R. S. Patel, learned Addl. Statement was also not recorded in the form prescribed for recording the confessional statement. In the circumstances acquittal of the accused respondent Shamim ahmad calls for no interference within the scope of interference of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 11 Shri R. S. Patel, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of State has submitted that confessional statement was properly recorded by the Magistrate, investigation was fairly done by the police. 12 First we come to the question of scope of interference in the revision. Shri surendra Singh, learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that scope for interference under section 397/401 is limited. He has pressed into service decision in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy V/s. State of A. R - AIR 1962 SC 1788 in which it has been laid down that it is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should be exercised by the High court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. The High Court should confine itself only to the admissibility of the evidence and should not go further and appraise the evidence also. The Apex Court has further observed that where material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court, interference can be made in exceptional cases. The cases should be of exceptional nature where High Court may justifiably interfere in the order of acquittal. Reference has also been made at Bar to decision in Ayodhya Dube V/s. Ram Summer Singh - AIR 1981 SC 1415 when the Sessions judge acquitted the accused by ignoring the probative value of F. I. R. and reliable testimony of eyewitnesses and without considering material evidence on record and his judgment was full of inconsistencies and consisted of faulty reasoning, the order of the High Court in revision directing retrial by setting aside acquittal was held to be justified. In Sunil Kumar Pal V/s. Phota Sheikh - AIR 1984 SC 1591 it is laid down that trial was not properly conducted by the prosecutor consequently it was held to be vitiated, acquittal of the accused was set aside. In Sunil Kumar Pal V/s. Phota Sheikh - AIR 1984 SC 1591 it is laid down that trial was not properly conducted by the prosecutor consequently it was held to be vitiated, acquittal of the accused was set aside. Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr. Counsel has also relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in Maya Bai and another Vs. Bhajan Lal and others - 2005 (2) MPLJ 37 in which it is laid down that in the revision merely on the ground that another view on the basis of the evidence brought on record is possible and that the facts could have been examined from another perspective, judgment of acquittal cannot be overturned. Even error of law also does not vitiate the judgment unless it is shown that it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The finding of Trial court has to be shown to be absurd or palpably wrong. In Govindi Vs. Dharamraj and others - 2003 (3) MPLJ 84, it has been observed by this Court that ordinarily interference is not made by the High Court in judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless there has been manifest error of law or procedure. The interference with the order of acquittal is limited only to exceptional cases where it is found that the order under revision suffers from glaring illegality or has caused miscarriage of justice or when it is found that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case or where the trial Court has illegally shut out the evidence which otherwise ought to have been considered or where the material evidence which clinches the issue has been overlooked. Where the findings recorded by the trial Court led to the acquittal of accused persons do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and another view on the prosecution was possible, an evidence will not be itself sufficient ground to warrant interference in complainant's revision against the acquittal. Reliance was placed on a decision of Apex Court in bindeshwari Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar - AIR 2002 SC 2907 in which the apex Court has laid down that if the High Court could not convert a finding of acquittal into one of the conviction directly, it could not do so indirectly by the method of ordering a re-trial. High Court will ordinarily not interfere in revision with an order of acquittal except in exceptional cases where the interest of public justice requires interference for the correction of a manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. For making interference in revision, there has to be perversity, acceptance or rejection of evidence and defect in procedural law in the conduct of the trial vitiating the trial itself. In Lallu Singh vs. Praveen Vishwakarma and others - 2004 (1) MPLJ 45 , this Court considered the scope of interference and observed that mere possibility of another view on the prosecution evidence will not, itself, be a sufficient ground to warrant interference in a complainant's revision petitioner against acquittal. The decision of Apex Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy V/s. State of A. P. (supra) was relied on. The Apex Court in State of U. P. V/s. Udai Narayan - AIR 1999 SC 3845 has observed that High Court could not scrutinize the evidence in revision jurisdiction. We have to keep in mind the principles enunciated in the aforesaid decisions while considering various submissions raised at Bar. 13 Coming to the question of confessional statement (P-59) of accused Shamim ahmad @ Raju recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C on 18.8.1998 by ACJM Smt. Radha Sonkar (PW-39), the Trial Court has given following reasons to discard the confessional statement of accused Shamim Ahmad :- (i) That the oath was administered to the accused, consequently statement recorded under section 164 Cr. P. C. rendered inadmissible. (ii) Confessional statement was given under threat and pressure of the police. (iii) It was not ascertained from the accused whether he was produced from the custody by police and why he wanted to admit the guilt. (iv) It was necessary for the Magistrate to ascertain whether the accused was giving the statement without any inducement, threat or pressure. (v) It was not informed by the Magistrate that statement could be used against him. (vi) There was no evidence available against the accused, consequently making confessional statement was unnatural. (vii) Confession was retracted by filing an application (D-4 ). (viii) Police was present outside the court at the time of recording of confessional statement. (ix) Question also arises whether Shamim Ahmad was examined as a witness at the time when his statement under section 164 Cr. (vii) Confession was retracted by filing an application (D-4 ). (viii) Police was present outside the court at the time of recording of confessional statement. (ix) Question also arises whether Shamim Ahmad was examined as a witness at the time when his statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. was recorded, and later- on the next day of making confessional statement, he was arrested, thus his statement recorded as a witness was inadmissible in evidence as confessional statement as submitted by Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr. Counsel. (x) The question also arises for consideration what is the value of the confessional statement as against the co-accused. 14 Counsel for the parties have referred to Ss.164, 281, 463 of the Cr. P. C. and S.24 of the Indian Evidence Act. S.164 Cr. P. C. empowers the Magistrate to record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under Chapter XII. Proviso make it clear that no confessional statement shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force. Subsection (2) of Sec.164 Cr. P. C. cast the duty on the Magistrate to explain to the person making the confession that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him. The Magistrate has to ensure before confession is recorded, that the person is making it voluntarily. Subsection (4) of Sec.164 Cr. P. C provides that any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the effect mentioned therein. Subsection (5) of section 164 is also relevant. It provides any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in such manner provided for the recording of evidence and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded. Sec.164 Cr. P. C. is quoted below :- 164. Subsection (5) of section 164 is also relevant. It provides any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in such manner provided for the recording of evidence and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded. Sec.164 Cr. P. C. is quoted below :- 164. (1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. Provided that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force. (2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily. (3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody. (4) Any Such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect: "i have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. (signed) A. B magistrate". It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. (signed) A. B magistrate". (5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section (I) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded. (6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried. Sec.281 of Cr. P. C. provides for recording of examination of accused. It is provided that memorandum of the substance of the examination has to be in the language of the Court and shall be singed by the Magistrate and shall form part of the record. Once substance is recorded, it has to be read over or explained to the accused as provided in subsection (4) of Sec.281 and thereafter shall be signed by the Magistrate who shall certify under his own hand that the examination was taken in his presence as provided under section 281 (5 ). Section 281, Cr. P. C. is quoted below :- 281. Record of examination of accused.- (l) Whenever the accused is examined by a Metropolitan Magistrate, the magistrate shall make a memorandum of the substance of the examination of the accused in the language of the Court and such memorandum shall be signed by the Magistrate and shall form part of the record. (2) Whenever the accused is examined by any Magistrate other than a Metropolitan Magistrate, or by a Court of Session, the whole of such examination, including every question put to him and every answer given by him, shall be recorded in full by the presiding Judge or Magistrate himself or where he is unable to do so owing to a physical or other incapacity, under his direction and superintendence by an officer of the Court appointed by him in this behalf. (3) The record shall, if practicable, be in the language in which the accused is examined or, if that is not practicable in the language of the Court. (3) The record shall, if practicable, be in the language in which the accused is examined or, if that is not practicable in the language of the Court. (4) The record shall be shown or read to the accused, or, if he does not understand the language in which it is written, shall be interpreted to him in a language which he understands, and he shall be at liberty to explain or add to his answers. (5) It shall thereafter be signed by the accused and by the magistrate or presiding Judge, who shall certify under his own hand that the examination was taken in his presence and hearing and that the record contains a full and true account of the statement made by the accused. (6) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to the examination of an accused person in the course of a summary trial. Sec.463 of Cr. P. C. provides for consequences of non compliance of provisions of Sec.164 and Sec.281 of Cr. P. C. Subsection (1) of Section 463 provides that if any Court finds while recording the confession that provisions of section 164 or Sec.281, as the case may be, have not been complied with unfettered by the provisions of Sec.19 of the Indian Evidence Act, Court is empowered to take evidence in regard to the non compliance and in case non compliance has not injured the accused in his defence on the merits and that he duly made the statement recorded, admit such statement. The provision of section 463 Cr. P. C, clearly apply to the Court of appeal, reference and revision as provided in sub section 2 of section 463 of Cr. P. C. Sec.463 is quoted below :- 463. Non-compliance with provisions of section 164 or section 281.- (1) If any Court before which a confession or other statement of an accused person recorded, or purporting to be recorded under section 164 or section 281, is tendered, or has been received, in evidence finds that any of the provisions of either of such sections have not been complied with by the Magistrate recording the statement, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act.1872 d of 1872 ). take evidence in regard to such non-compliance, and may, if satisfied that such non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defence on the merits and that he duly made the statement recorded, admit such statement. (2) The provisions of this section apply to Courts of appeal, reference and revision. 15 Sub-section (5) of Sec.164 makes it clear that any statement (other than a confession) the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded, thus administering the oath to the accused is prohibited. Our view is fortified by the view taken by the Apex Court in Babubhai udesinh Parmar V/s. State of Gujarat.- AIR 2007 SC 420 , wherein the Apex court observed that the taking of statement of an accused on oath is prohibited. However, the Apex Court has also observed that at the same time it may or may not be of much significance and proceeded to examine the value of the confessional statement made. The Apex Court has observed thus ;-10. We do not appreciate as to why oath had to be administered to the accused while recording confession. Taking of a statement of an accused on oath is prohibited. It may or may not be of much significance. But, it may assume significance when we examine that a purported deposition of accused was taken on 10.3.2003 wherein also his evidence on oath was recorded in the following terms: " I hereby state on oath that :- My Name Babubhai my father's name Udesing Parmar my age about 27 years my occupation Labour work village of residence Native Umrav tadia Pura, at presence Karamsad question : Have you received copy of documents of police investigation? answer Yes question : Is the charge sheet Exh.4 read over to you, Do you admit the offence? Or you want to proceed further the judicial proceedings? answer : I do not admit the offence question : Have you engaged private advocate for you self defence or you want to engage advocate at the cost of Government? answer I have engaged free advocate" 12. A judicial confession undoubtedly is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. A judgment of conviction can also be based on a confession if it is found to be truthful, deliberate and voluntary and if clearly proved. answer I have engaged free advocate" 12. A judicial confession undoubtedly is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. A judgment of conviction can also be based on a confession if it is found to be truthful, deliberate and voluntary and if clearly proved. The voluntary nature of the confession depends upon whether there was any threat, inducement or promise and its truth is judged on the basis of the entire prosecution case. [see Bharat V/s. State of U. P., (1971) 3 SCC 950 and Subramania Goundan V/s. The State of Madras, (1958) SCR 429]. 13. In State (NCT of Delhi) V/s. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan guru [ (2005) 11 SCC 600 ], this Court observed; "confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would make admission against his interest unless prompted by his conscience to tell the truth. "deliberate and voluntary confessions of guilt, if clearly proved are among the most effectual proofs in law", (vide Taylor's Treatise on the Law of Evidence vo. I ). However, before acting upon a confession the court must be satisfied that it was freely and voluntarily made. A confession by hope or promise of advantage, reward or immunity or by force or by fear induced by violence or threats of violence cannot constitute evidence against the maker of confession. The confession should have been made with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of the confession. If any reasonable doubt is entertained by the court that these ingredients are not satisfied, the court should eschew the confession from consideration. So also the authority recording the confession - be it a Magistrate or some other statutory functionary at the pre-trial stage, must address himself to the issue whether the accused has come forward to make the confession in an atmosphere free from fear, duress or hope of some advantage or reward induced by the persons in authority. Recognizing the stark reality of the accused being enveloped in a state of fear and panic, anxiety and despair while in police custody, the. Indian Evidence Act has excluded the admissibility of a confession made to the police officer. Sec.164 of Cr. RC. Recognizing the stark reality of the accused being enveloped in a state of fear and panic, anxiety and despair while in police custody, the. Indian Evidence Act has excluded the admissibility of a confession made to the police officer. Sec.164 of Cr. RC. is a salutary provision which lays down certain precautionary rules to be followed by the Magistrate recording a confession so as to ensure the voluntariness of the confession and the accused being placed in a situation free from threat or influence of the police. " 14. However, it was categorically stated that retracted confession must be looked upon with greater concern unless the reasons given for having made it in the first instance are on the face of them false. The Apex Court has observed that the judicial confession is admissible in evidence relying upon the decision in State (NCT of Delhi) V/s. Navjot Sandhu alias Afasn Guru [ (2005) 11 SCC 600 ] in which it was observed that confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would make admission against his interest unless prompted by his conscience to tell the truth. Section 164 of Cr. P. C. is a salutary provision which lays down certain precautionary rules to be followed by the Magistrate recording a confession so as to ensure the voluntariness of the confession and the accused being placed in a situation free from threat or influence of the police. The retracted confession must be looked upon with greater concern unless the reasons given for having made it in the first instance are on the face of them false. The court must give sufficient time to an accused to ponder over as to whether he would make confession or not. 16 In Philips V/s. State of Karntaka - 1980 Cri. L. J.171, the Karnataka High court opined that there is no provision for administering oath to an accused who is making confessional statement before the Magistrate. Administering of oath will be contrary to provision of Sec.281 and the statement lost its evidentiary value. The accused should not be made to feel that he is bound down to particular statement, and if he later stated something contrary to that, he would be incurring the wrath of law. In State Vs. Suram Singh - 1976 Cri. Administering of oath will be contrary to provision of Sec.281 and the statement lost its evidentiary value. The accused should not be made to feel that he is bound down to particular statement, and if he later stated something contrary to that, he would be incurring the wrath of law. In State Vs. Suram Singh - 1976 Cri. L. J.96, the Jammu and kashmir High Court held that a statement recorded under Sec.164 would be inadmissible in evidence as made under compulsion of oath. In Brijbasi Lai shrivastava V/s. State of madhya Pradesh - AIR 1979 SC 1080 , the Apex Court observed that the officer who had taken the statement of the appellant shows that he had administered an oath to the appellant before taking his statement although he was not empowered to administer any oath. This circumstance by itself would amount to a concealed threat, because if the statement was found to be false the appellant may have entertained a genuine belief that he might be prosecuted. On merit also the statement was not found to be reliable. The Apex court has laid down thus 10. The evidence of P. W.10 the officer who had taken the statement of the appellant shows that he had administered an oath to the appellant before taking his statement although he was not empowered to administer any oath. This circumstance by itself would amount to a concealed threat, because if the statement was found to be false the appellant may have entertained a genuine belief that he might be prosecuted. Secondly, it appears from the judgment of Special Criminal Case No.2 of 1966 that the charge with respect to two items mentioned in this very document, viz. , the item relating to misappropriation of Rs.43 and Rs.20 had been disbelieved and the prosecution case regarding the same rejected. Thus, the veracity of the document Ex. P-12 was shaken to a very great extent. There can be no doubt that the judgment of the Special Judge in Spl. Criminal Case. No.2 of 1966 would be admissible to show what was the issue in question in that case and the decision thereof. As the appellant had been acquitted of the charge relating to these two items, we are not in a position to attach much importance to the document Ex. Criminal Case. No.2 of 1966 would be admissible to show what was the issue in question in that case and the decision thereof. As the appellant had been acquitted of the charge relating to these two items, we are not in a position to attach much importance to the document Ex. P-12 against the appellant with respect to the item of Rs.500, particularly when the appellant had definitely pleaded that the statement was not his voluntary statement but was taken by P. W.10 under duress. Such a statement was, therefore, clearway inadmissible under Sec.24 of the Evidence Act. But that apart, even if the statement is admissible having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, its probative value is precious little. Thus, the documents Exs. P-12 and D-7 have to be excluded from consideration for the reasons given above. The Apex Court has also observed that even if the statement is admissible having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, its probative value is precious little and it was excluded from consideration for the various reasons mentioned in above-quoted Para - 10. 17 In Nazir Ahmad Vs. Emperor - 1936 PC.253, it was laid down that whether a Magistrate records any confession is a matter of duty and discretion and not of obligation. The rule which applied is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. The oral evidence tendered by Magistrate was held to be inadmissible. If oral evidence be allowed in such a case all the precautions and safeguards laid down by Ss.164 and 364 would be of such trifling value as to be almost idle. 18 The Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Singhara Singh and others - AIR 1964 SC 358 has referred to decision of Nazir Ahmad Vs. Emperor (supra) and observed that where a second class Magistrate not specially empowered by the State Government to record a statement or confession under s.164 Cr. P. C. has purported to record a confession of the accused under S.164 his oral evidence to prove the confession will be inadmissible. Emperor (supra) and observed that where a second class Magistrate not specially empowered by the State Government to record a statement or confession under s.164 Cr. P. C. has purported to record a confession of the accused under S.164 his oral evidence to prove the confession will be inadmissible. The principle that where power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that the other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. 19 In Nika Ram Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh - AIR 1972 SC 2077 , it was held that the Magistrate who recorded confession was second class Magistrate and was not specially empowered in that behalf, thus the record of confession was inadmissible in evidence at the trial. 20 It is apparent from the aforesaid exposition of law in the aforesaid decisions that administering of oath to an accused is prohibited. However, at the same time the Apex Court has not laid down in Babubhai Udesinh Parmar V/s. State of gujarat (supra) and Brijbasi Lal Shrivastava V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) that if oath is administered, statement will be rendered wholly inadmissible. Considering the provisions of Sec.463 of Cr. P. C, it is apparent that if any court before which a confession or other statement is made evidence against an accused person is recorded, or purporting to be recorded under section 164 or section 281, finds that any of the provisions of either of such sections have not been complied with by the Magistrate recording the statement, take, evidence in regard to such non-compliance, and may, if satisfied that "such non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defence on the merits and that he duly made the statement recorded, admit such statement". The provisions of Sec.463 (1)makes it clear that non compliance of the provision is fatal in case it has caused injury to the accused in his defence on merit. Though there was non compliance in the instant case inasmuch as oath was administered, it was violative of Section 164 (5) of Cr. P. C, it may not be fatal. The evidentiary value of such confessional statement is required to be considered and Court is required to find that such non compliance has injured the accused in his defence on merits -and whether he duly made statement recorded. P. C, it may not be fatal. The evidentiary value of such confessional statement is required to be considered and Court is required to find that such non compliance has injured the accused in his defence on merits -and whether he duly made statement recorded. In our opinion, such statement may be admitted in case it has not caused prejudice on merit in the facts, of the case to the accused. In the instant case accused Shamim had retracted the confession (P-59) by way of filing application (D-4), after 6 days it was recorded He never felt boundown by oath which was administered wrongly to him and oath has to be simply ignored. The administering the oath simplicitor cannot be said to, have injured the accused in his defence on merit in the instant case. We disagree with the finding recorded by the court below that due to administering of the oath the confessional statement (P-59) was rendered inadmissible. We respectfully disagree with the view expressed in Philips V/s. State of Karnataka (supra) by Karnataka High Court and State Vs. Suram Singh - (supra) by Jammu and Kashmir High Court. In our opinion it has to be seen whether administering of the oath has injured the accused in his defence on merit of a case. 21 Coming to the question that confessional statement was made under threat and pressure of the police as found by the court below. In the instant case the trial Court has found in Para-41 that accused Shamim Ahmad prior to 16.8.1998 was called to the police station several times for the purpose of interrogation, he was interrogated on 16.8.1998 in the night and remained at police station on 17.8.98 also till the evening, he remained in the police custody and went to the house in the evening of 17.8.98 but before that he had made admission to the police about his guilt, thus after leaving him, police had put supervision on him and police personnel brought accused Shamim Ahmad to the court on 18.8.1998. The part of the statement of M. K. Pachori (PW-37) has not been disbelieved by the court below that accused was let off in the evening of 17.8.1998 and was permitted to go home whereas his confessional statement was recorded on 18.8.1998 by Addl. GJM. The part of the statement of M. K. Pachori (PW-37) has not been disbelieved by the court below that accused was let off in the evening of 17.8.1998 and was permitted to go home whereas his confessional statement was recorded on 18.8.1998 by Addl. GJM. The summon was also served on 17.8.1998 as required by the court on the accused Shamim Ahmad to be present before the Court for giving the statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. on 18.8.98 as stated by M. K. Pachori (PW-37 ). He has deposed in Para-4 of his statement that application was filed before the AC JM. It is stated by R. L. Mishra (PW-33) in para 20 of his deposition. In case accused was let-off in the evening of 17.8.98 as stated by M. K. Pachori (PW-37) and summon was served on him on 17.8.1998 to make statement under section 164 cr. P. C. before the Court on 18.8.98 as stated by R. L. Mishra (PW-33), would indicate that accused was not in the police custody after evening of 17.8.1998 though he was kept under surveillance. He was free to make consultation and deliberation with his family members and was also free to obtain legal opinion, if any, if he so desired before making any confessional statement before the magistrate. Consequently the finding recorded by the Court below that accused was under threat or pressure of the police, would not be correct. We deem it appropriate to refer the case of the accused as it has been suggested in the cross examination of the witnesses that accused was not let-off on 17.8.1998 and was detained at the police station till his confessional statement was recorded on 18.8.1998 and his formal arrest was made next day on 19.8.1998, this aspect has not been gone into by the Trial Court in proper perspective. On the one hand statement of M. K. Pachori (PW-37) has also been relied upon. It was necessary to determine whether there was any threat or pressure of the police to find out whether accused was under continuous custody w. e. f.5.8.98 till formal arrest on 19.8.1998 as claimed by him and suggested in the cross examination of aforesaid witnesses R. K. Mishra (PW-33) and M. K. Pachori (PW-37) and as stated by the accused in the statement under section 313 of Cr. P. C. It was necessary to consider this question whether accused was in fact let off on 17.8.98 and came from his house as stated by M. K. Pachori (PW-37), thus the finding recorded by the Trial court on the aforesaid aspect cannot be said to be proper. In case accused was let off, it would have bearing on the question whether he was kept under threat or pressure by the police as he had considerable time to think-over before making confessional statement before the Magistrate. This aspect requires to be gone into afresh by the Trial Court as the Trial Court has not properly considered the defence of the accused while recording the finding of fear and pressure. 22 The Court below has also discarded the confessional statement on the ground that it was not ascertained by the Magistrate from the accused whether he was produced from the custody and why he wanted to admit the guilt connected question is whether accused made the statement under inducement, threat or pressure. A reading of statement (Ex. P-59) makes it clear that accused was warned that he was not bound to make any statement, inquiry was made from him whether he wanted to make statement voluntarily and as per the duty enjoined upon the magistrate under section 164 (4), the bottom note was added by the Magistrate that Shamim Ahmad was told by the Magistrate that he was not bound to make confessional statement and in case he makes any confession, it could be used against him. The Magistrate has also recorded her satisfaction that confessional statement was made voluntarily in her presence and was admitted to be correct by Shamim Ahmad and his entire statement was correctly recorded. Thus the statutory duty cast upon the Magistrate was complied with in the instant case. The Magistrate has added the bottom note as mandatory under sub section (4) of section 164, it was also signed by the accused as stated by Smt. Radha Sonkar, acjm also that accused had put his signatures on portion A to A on each page, thus submission of Shri A. Usmani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused shamim Ahmad that signatures of the accused were not obtained on the confessional statement, is factually incorrect. Even if the signatures would not have been obtained, as making of statement by accused is not disputed, it would not have been a case of an illegality but merely an irregularity in the facts of the case. While the the finding recorded by the Court below that it was not ascertained by the Magistrate whether accused was making statement without fear, pressure or inducement, the bottom note has been ignored in which it has been mentioned as. well as in the note at/the commencement of the confessional statement by the magistrate that it was ascertained from the accused whether he was making statement voluntarily and he was told of the consequences. When we consider statement of Smt. Radha Sonkar (PW-39) ACJM, though it was not necessary to examine her, nonetheless she was examined, she has stated in Para-4 of her deposition that accused was initially told that he was not bound to make any statement and in case he makes any statement, it could be used against him. He was given time to think over and thereafter also he was again told by the Magistrate as to consequences of making the statement and only thereafter his statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. was recorded. She has further stated in Para-9 that one hour time was given to think-over to accused Shamim Ahmad. It is also apparent from the statement of R. L. Mishra (PW-33), that summon was allegedly served on accused Shamim Ahmad on 17.8.1998 a day before making statement to the magistrate. In the facts of the instant case it is also clear that accused knew it very well that confession was going to be recorded by the Magistrate. He came to the court, he was resident of same place Jabalpur, thus he was not misled in the facts of the instant case as to his capacity of Smt. Radha Sonkar that she was addl. CJM, empowered to record the statement under section 164, on summons, it is mentioned that before Judicial Magistrate statement has to be recorded. No doubt about it that Magistrate did not ascertain whether he was in the custody of the police, thus the question whether accused was in the police custody or was let off a day before, was material question and it ought to have been gone into by the trial Court on the basis of evidence on record. No doubt about it that Magistrate did not ascertain whether he was in the custody of the police, thus the question whether accused was in the police custody or was let off a day before, was material question and it ought to have been gone into by the trial Court on the basis of evidence on record. Merely by not ascertaining the. fact whether accused was in custody or not by Magistrate, was not fatal, trial court ought to have considered the question on the basis of other evidence on record. The method and manner in which application (D-12) was filed, it was apparent that police was not sure that Shamim Ahmad was going to make confessional statement before the Magistrate, nonetheless he ultimately made it. Whether he made it under threat or pressure, is the question which assumes significance. In case he was in custody and was ill treated as claimed by him, there may be justification to give a finding that accused was kept under the threat or pressure. 23 Coming to the question whether accused was induced by the police that he was going to be pardoned and going to be a witness in the case against accused kailash Sonkar, but this is not the statement made by Shamim Ahmad in his retracted confession (D-4) or in the statement made under section 313 Cr. P. C. nor it has been suggested in the cross examination of any of the Investigating officer's R. L. Mishra (PW-33) or M. K. Pachori (PW-37) that any assurance was given to the accused as suggested by the learned Sr. counsel. When fact is in the knowledge of the accused, Sec.106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. counsel. When fact is in the knowledge of the accused, Sec.106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. No doubt it is clear that section 24 of the Evidence act provides that a confession made by ah accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. Merely by the fact that in the application (D-12) it was not clearly mentioned that whether Shamim Ahmad was going to be a witness or an accused in the case, it could not be inferred that an inducement or promise was made to him. An inducement or promise has to proceed from a person in authority who made such an inducement or promise is not on record, it is not the defence taken by the accused, the Court has also to find that what kind of inducement or promise or threat was given, proceedings from a person in authority was sufficient to give, was reasonably sufficient for suggesting that by making it, he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature. Merely by the fact that the magistrate while recording confession referred Shamim Ahmad in the beginning as a witness by that itself it could not be said that any inducement was made to the accused Shamim Ahmad to make the statement before the Court to the effect that he was going to be pardoned after making statement and was going to be witness against co accused Kailash Sonkar. No categorical finding has been recorded that any inducement was given or promise was meted out to the accused shamim-Ahmad by any person in authority that he was going to be pardoned in the case and was gong to be a witness in the capacity of approver as against kailash Sonkar. No categorical finding has been recorded that any inducement was given or promise was meted out to the accused shamim-Ahmad by any person in authority that he was going to be pardoned in the case and was gong to be a witness in the capacity of approver as against kailash Sonkar. Though we have discussed the merit of the submission as made by Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr. counsel. Since this aspect has not been gone into by Trial Court, we leave this question open to the Trial Court to be examined afresh, in case there is any evidence on record we leave open the question to be examined by the Trial Court unfettered by any observation made by us in the order. We have examined the case only with a view to do justice to the submission made by the learned Sr. Counsel. He has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Pyarelal Bhargava V/s. The State of Rajasthan - AIR 1963 SC 1094 wherein the Apex Court has laid down that the crucial word in section 24 is the expression "appears". The appropriate meaning of the word "appears" is seems, it imports a lesser degree of probability than proof. The standard of a prudent man is not completely displaced, but the stringent rule of proof is relaxed. Even so, the laxity of proof permitted does not warrant a court's opinion based on pure surmise. A prima facie opinion based on evidence and circumstances may be adopted as the standard laid down. It is not possible nor advisable to lay down an inflexible standard for guidance of courts, for in the ultimate analysis it is the court which is called upon to exclude a confession by holding in the circumstances of a particular case that the confession was not made voluntarily. The Apex Court has also emphasized that threat etc. must proceed from person in authority and the threat etc. must cause reasonable belief in mind of confessing accused that he would get advantage etc. The Trial Court has not probed into the aforesaid aspect as to person in authority who gave inducement or promise to be pardoned or to make accused shamim Ahmad an approver, we leave the question at that to be examined afresh by the Trial Court. must cause reasonable belief in mind of confessing accused that he would get advantage etc. The Trial Court has not probed into the aforesaid aspect as to person in authority who gave inducement or promise to be pardoned or to make accused shamim Ahmad an approver, we leave the question at that to be examined afresh by the Trial Court. Counsel has also referred to decision of Culcutta High Court in mohsena Khatun and another V/s. Emperor - AIR 1939 Calcutta 610 laying down that it is the duty of the Judge to satisfy himself that confession is not made owing to inducement or threats. Whether there is such inducement, is to be ascertained from circumstances. Since we have left the question open to be examined by the Court below at the first instance it is not for us to give any opinion on that aspect within the ken of revisional jurisdiction. We have considered the method and manner in which the finding have been recorded and whether any material evidence has been ignored or findings are perverse and relevant material has been held to be inadmissible or Court has proceeded on irrelevant consideration. We leave the question of facts to be examined afresh by the Trial Court. Similarly the finding of Trial Court that the Magistrate had not informed the accused chat the statement could be used against him is not properly arrived at. The initial note and bottom note in the statement makes it clear that it was clearly informed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Smt. Radha Sonkar (PW-39) that statement could be used against him. The finding is based on ignoring material evidence. 24 The reason assigned by the Trial Court that there was no evidence against the accused as such it appears that confessional statement was unnatural. In state (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @afsan Guru - (2005) 11 SCC 600 the Apex Court has observed that confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would make an admission against his interest unless prompted by his "conscience to tell the truth". "deliberate and voluntary confessions of guilt, if clearly proved are among the most effectual proofs. in law. Navjot Sandhu @afsan Guru - (2005) 11 SCC 600 the Apex Court has observed that confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would make an admission against his interest unless prompted by his "conscience to tell the truth". "deliberate and voluntary confessions of guilt, if clearly proved are among the most effectual proofs. in law. " Merely by the fact that there was no other evidence available by that time against the accused to make confessional statement, it could not have been inferred by the Trial Court that it was unnatural and made under fear and pressure. No such inference was called for. It should have been examined independently considering the other evidence whether accused was under fear or pressure. The course of human conduct indicates that person may admit the guilt independently without considering whether there was any other evidence against him or not, it would hot be unnatural in case it was made without fear or threat/inducement or promise. 25 Another reason given by the Court in Para-41 that police was out side of the room when confessional statement of Shamim Ahmad was recorded. The case of prosecution is that accused was let-off and was brought to the Court by serving a summon for recording Ms statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. No doubt the cases in which the police makes investigation, accused or witness has to be brought to the Court by the police. There was nothing unusual in the case as tt. L. Mishra (PW-33) has stated that summon was served on Shamim Ahmad for recording his statement under Sec.164 Cr. P. C. before the Addl CJM. Police was not present in the court and the accused was given one hour time and was asked to sit in the gallery not meant for general public for one hour. Merely by the fact that some police personnel was outside the court room, it could not have been inferred by the court below that due to aforesaid presence of police personnel outside the court room, there was any threat or pressure exerted on the accused. In case accused was brought to the court by the police personnel, it lias to be examined independently what kind of threat or pressure was meted out to the accused/witness. Usually when statement under section 164 Cr. In case accused was brought to the court by the police personnel, it lias to be examined independently what kind of threat or pressure was meted out to the accused/witness. Usually when statement under section 164 Cr. P. C. is recorded, case is at the investigation stage, it is only police personnel who are supposed to bring the accused or witness to the court for the purpose of recording the statement under section 164 Cr. P. C 26 The Apex Court in Dagdu and others etc., V/s. State of Maharashtra - AIR 1977 SC 1579 has laid down that the failure to comply with Sec.164 (3)Cr. R C. or with the High Court Circulars will not render the confessions inadmissible in evidence. Relevancy and admissibility of evidence have to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. In Hem Raj devilal V/s. The State of Ajmer - AIR 1954 SC 462 , the Apex Court has held that recording of a confession in jail instead of the court, where it should have been ordinarily recorded, is an irregularity. It was also held that in the circumstances of the case, the irregularity did not affect the voluntary character of the confessions. It is necessary to warn the accused as required under section 164 Cr. RC. that it was not necessary for him to make statement and it could be used against him, in case such a warning was not given, such confession cannot be acted upon, as held by the Supreme Court in Chinna Gowda etc. V/s. The State of Mysore - 1965 scj 500 , The Apex Court in Ram Charan and others V/s. The State of U. R- AIR 1968 SC 1270 had laid down that even if endorsement of certificate by Magistrate below statement of witness recorded under S.164 is not in proper form, it does not necessarily mean that any threat was given to witness or that his evidence given in Court is less believable. 27 Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr. Counsel has also submitted that confessional statement was recorded in the capacity of witness, thereafter accused was arrested, thus the confessional statement (P-59) is not admissible. 27 Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr. Counsel has also submitted that confessional statement was recorded in the capacity of witness, thereafter accused was arrested, thus the confessional statement (P-59) is not admissible. He has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in State of T. N. V/s. J. Jayalalitha - AIR 2000 SC 1589 , in which the High Court has relied upon the statement of the then Chief Secretary, who was arrayed as third accused in the charge sheet, the Apex Court has observed that there is no use with the said statement attributed to the third accused on account of two reasons, firstly that the said author of the statement has already been arraigned in the case and a charge has been framed against him and secondly, on a reading of the statement we have noticed that it is exculpatory in nature, hence it was rejected. The Apex Court has laid down in Para 8 and 11 thus :- 8. Learned single Judge of the Madras High Court while affirming the said order pointed out that the entire case against the respondent is based on the statement of Shri V. Sundaram and another statement made by Shri Venkataraman, the then Chief secretary (who is arrayed as the third accused in the charge sheet, against whom the trial Court has framed charge ). The latter statement was recorded under Sec.164 of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short 'the Code' ). Regarding the objections put forward by V. Sundaram in the Current File, learned single Judge noticed that Page Nos.225 to 245 of that file remained missing at a particular point of time and the objections made by V. Sundaram were on those sheets. When there is nothing to show that those sheets were removed at the behest of respondent Jayalalitha it must be presumed that she had not come across those objections, according to learned single Judge of the High Court. 11. We may, at the outset, point out that there is no use with the said statement attributed to the third accused Venkata-raman on account of two reasons. First is that the said author of the statement has already been arraigned in the case and a charge has been framed against him. Second is that on a reading of the statement we. have noticed that it is exculpatory in nature. First is that the said author of the statement has already been arraigned in the case and a charge has been framed against him. Second is that on a reading of the statement we. have noticed that it is exculpatory in nature. Hence the said statement can only lie in store and no court can possibly treat it as evidence. Coming to the facts of the instant case, the police had treated Shamim ahmad as accused, but there was no evidence collected against him by that time. He was interrogated by the police and he made admission of guilt and disclosed the circumstances to the police as to his complicity and complicity of co accused in the case. Police did not arrest him as claimed by it forthwith for the very reason statement made before it was useless and that police was not sure that accused was was going to make confessional statement before the Court under section 164 Cr. P. C. There is nothing to infer that Shamim Ahmad was to be treated as witness in the instant case, police wanted to ascertain whether Shamim Ahmad was going to make the statement before the Magistrate of the facts implicating him, soon thereafter he was arrested next very day i. e. on 19.8.1998, The ratio of the aforesaid decision in J. Jailalitha (supra) is not attracted to the instant case in which statement of third accused was recorded in the capacity of witness. Merely reference by the Magistrate in the statement (P-59) that witness was administered oath, is not sufficient to hold that he was being examined as a witness not as accused in the case. It is apparent from the entire reading of the statement that lie was examined in the capacity of accused and not in the capacity of witness a the instant case. The initial note and bottom note indicate that learned Magistrate while recording the statement complied with provision under section 164 Cr. P. C. except that oath was wrongly administered which would not make statement inadmissible. Since it was not the statement of witness the Trial Court has further erred in holding that statement could only be used for the purpose of contradiction or proving the omissions, not for proving the guilt, if it was voluntarily made without inducement, threat, pressure or promise etc. Since it was not the statement of witness the Trial Court has further erred in holding that statement could only be used for the purpose of contradiction or proving the omissions, not for proving the guilt, if it was voluntarily made without inducement, threat, pressure or promise etc. and was not hit by provision of Section 24 of the Evidence Act, it could be used for proving the guilt. 28 Coming to the submission that as to the value of the confessional statement as against the co accused law is settled that it could be used as corroborative evidence. Confession of co accused can be used as corroborative evidence, however, we refrain to examine the facts in the revisional jurisdiction as that is not the function of the revisional court. It is for the Trial Court to take into consideration on the basis of the factual finding to be arrived at on various aspects of the case and thereafter independently it has to be considered by the Trial Court whether the confessional statement of Shamim Ahmad can be used and to what extent as against co accused Kailash Sonkar. In State of Delhi V/s. Shri Ram Lohia- AIR 1960 SC 490 value of statement of the witness recorded under section 164 Cr. RC. was considered: In Hem Raj devilal V/s. The State of Ajmer (supra), it was observed by the Apex Court that a confession can be made even during a trial and the evidence already recorded may well be used to corroborate it. It has also been observed by the Apex Court that the confession has to be free from inducement or threat. The confession has to be completely free from influence of the police as held by the Apex Court in chinna Gowda etc. V/s. The State of Mysore (supra ). 29 Coming to the second fold of submission as to reliability of evidence of witness Hair Narayan. The Trial Court has considered the case from Para-20 to 36 while holding Hair Narayan to be unreliable witness. The Court below has not considered the material aspect of the case whether money was paid to the witness and by whom, in proper perspective and has made passing reference while concluding the case in Para-83 that it appears that a sum of Rs.24,000/- was paid by the prosecution/complainant, appears to be probable. The Court below has not considered the material aspect of the case whether money was paid to the witness and by whom, in proper perspective and has made passing reference while concluding the case in Para-83 that it appears that a sum of Rs.24,000/- was paid by the prosecution/complainant, appears to be probable. The Trial Court has completely ignored and overlooked the fact that on 11.2.1999, Hari Narayan was examined in the Court. It is apparent from the statement of his Bank account (D-16) proved by Asst. Bank Manager Aditya Pandey that a sum of Rs.24,000/-was deposited on 11.2.1999, on the date on which he deposed in favour of accused and against the prosecution, this witness was turned hostile, thus this aspect ought to have been gone into by the Trial Court in depth in order to find out the correctness of the statement of Hari Narayan, whether he was paid the money by the accused to resile from the statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. It was on the date of deposit of money and deposition in Court on 11.2.1999 that he did not support the prosecution case. It was also required to be gone into whether money was paid by the prosecution/complainant in November, 1998 for making him the witness in the case, if yes - whether the money would have been deposited on 11.2.1999. This material aspect has not been at all gone into in proper perspective by the Court below. Evidence on record has not been considered. As per the defence case money was paid to the witness, it was deposited in his Bank account, deposit was huge as compared to other transaction of several years in the passbook, it was incumbent upon the Court to probe deeply into the aforesaid question before appreciating the statement of Hari Narayan (PW-11 ). Trial Court has also failed take into consideration the background of the case in which the allegation was made against the Police Officer that he was not making fair investigation, public agitation was made and several authorities including the Chief Minister had to be approached. It was also necessary to consider what explanation has been given by the Investigating Officer as to delay in recording the statement of hari Narayan. Simpliciter on the basis of delay statement of witness if otherwise truthful, cannot be discarded. It was also necessary to consider what explanation has been given by the Investigating Officer as to delay in recording the statement of hari Narayan. Simpliciter on the basis of delay statement of witness if otherwise truthful, cannot be discarded. Whether delay was with a view to introduce falsely hari Narayan as a witness and whether it was done as an after thought, ought to have been gone into by the Court below. It was also necessary to go into the question of exchange of money for finding out the fact whether money was paid by prosecution/complainant in November, 1998 and whether his statement made on 11.2.1999 was correct or it was made under influence of money or recorded later on on 29.5.2000 under the order of this Court, was correct. The course of justice cannot be permitted to be polluted by making payment of money to win over the witness or set up a case falsely by either party. The Apex Court has laid down that such question should be gone into by the Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh V/s. State of Gujarat - 2004 AIR SCW 2325; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another - Vs. State of Gujarat and others - 2005 (4) SCC 292 and Zahira habibullah Sheikh and another Vs. State of Gujarat and others - 2005 (4)SCC 294 . We refrain to comment on the merit of statement of Hari Narayan as in our opinion the aforesaid aspect is necessary to be gone into before considering the reliability of his evidence. The Trial Court is also directed to make enquiry into the aforesaid aspect of payment of money, who in fact paid the money and to take appropriate steps against the persons responsible to pollute the Course of Justice and tampered with the evidence. Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr. The Trial Court is also directed to make enquiry into the aforesaid aspect of payment of money, who in fact paid the money and to take appropriate steps against the persons responsible to pollute the Course of Justice and tampered with the evidence. Shri Surendra Singh, learned Sr. Counsel has relied upon decisions of Apex court in "peddireddy Subbareddi V/s. State of A. P - AIR 1991 SC 1356 , shankarlal V/s. State of Rajasthan - AIR 2004 SC 3559 and Ramreddy rajeshkhanna Reddy V/s. State of Andra Pradesh - AIR 2006 SC 1656 to contend that non disclosure for nine months by Hari Narayan was enough to render him as unreliable, effect of delay has to be considered in each case, obviously delay in recording has to be taken into consideration but by that itself cannot be said to be enough to reject the entire version of the witness in case he is otherwise reliable. This is the function of the Trial Court it has to be done afresh in the night of the finding to be recorded by it on various aspect of the case including the payment of money if any. Sr. Counsel has also relied upon various decisions of Apex Court to contend that in case of non disclosure due to fear, such explanation has to be rejected, in Bihari Singh Madho Singh V/s. State of Bihar - , air 1954 SC 692 , "ram Pukar fhakur V/s. State of Bihar" - AIR 1974 SC 284 , "state of Orissa V/s. Brahmanandananda" - AIR 1976 SC 2488 , "alil Mollah V/s. State of W. B. " - AIR 1996 SC 3471 and "state of Rajasthan V/s. Mani Ram" - AIR 2001 SC 2430 . We leave the question to be re-examined by the Trial Court as in the instant case as per the accused money was paid by prosecution side whereas as per complainant's counsel it was paid by the accused to Hari Narayan to win him over on the date on which was examined initially in the Court on 11.2.1999 and was declared hostile. This aspect is required to be gone into then correctness of his entire statement has to be considered. The aforesaid aspect cannot be ignored and overlooked as that would have material bearing on the question which of the version is correct made on 11.2.99 or later on and. This aspect is required to be gone into then correctness of his entire statement has to be considered. The aforesaid aspect cannot be ignored and overlooked as that would have material bearing on the question which of the version is correct made on 11.2.99 or later on and. who made an attempt to tamper with the evidence. In the case there is serious allegation that money was paid to hari Narayan as submitted by the counsel for accused as well as by the counsel for revisionist, they are levelling charge on rival party, this is quite serious matter which is required to be gone into in the instant case and thereafter reliability of version of Hari Narayan to be adjudged afresh. 30 With respect to the motive also the finding recorded is that it has not been established that cheques were handed over to accused Kailash Sonkar. It has not been disputed by Shri Surendra Singh learned Sr. Counsel appearing for Kailash sonkar that in fact cheques were handed over to Kailash Sonkar and they were to be given back to deceased Raju Sonkar on fulfillment of certain conditions. It is apparent from (Ex. P-60) also that three cheques of amount of Rs.3,87,220/-were handed over to Kailash Sonkar who was a mediator. It appears that there was some dispute as to handing over the cheques to the deceased, since settlement deed Ex. P-60 itself contains recital that cheques were handed over to accused kailash Sonkar. It has not been disputed on facts and there is nothing on record to suggest that cheques were handed over by Kailash Sonkar to the deceased. In our opinion, the finding of the Trial Court on the aforesaid aspect is perverse, but what is the effect of it, we leave it to be considered afresh by the Trial Court on the basis of the finding to be recorded by it on factual aspects of the case. Statment of Smt. Madhu Sonkar and Pappu (PW-36) were also required to be considered on the aforesaid aspect of motive and dispute as to the cheques. 31 The Trial Court has also to consider whether trial was defective in any manner or any prejudice was caused by conducting of the case by Mr. G. D. Garg. Statment of Smt. Madhu Sonkar and Pappu (PW-36) were also required to be considered on the aforesaid aspect of motive and dispute as to the cheques. 31 The Trial Court has also to consider whether trial was defective in any manner or any prejudice was caused by conducting of the case by Mr. G. D. Garg. Resultantly, we set aside the judgment and remit the case to the Court below to decide it in accordance with law unfettered by any observation made by us on factual matrix of the case. This is made clear to the Trial Court that we have not given any factual finding on various aspect of case in this order. The Trial Court is free to take independent view on issues in factual matrix of the case and to decide, the case in accordance with law. It would be open to the Court to record additional evidence if so required. Accused are directed to appear before the court-below on 21.7.2008. As prayed by the counsel of the accused we clarify that accused will remain on bail as before. Order accordingly.