JUDGMENT : Indrajit Mahanty, J. - This application u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the Petitioner-Chirantan Sahu with a prayer to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 223(A) of 2003 (Arising out of Sohela P.S. Case No. 103 of 2003) pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Sohela inter alia on the ground that two of the co-accused persons who have faced trial for offences under Sections 399, 402 I.P.C. and had been acquitted by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Padmapur vide judgment dated 8.10.2004 in S.T. Case No. 150 of 2004. 2. Mr. B.B. Routray, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Kanhu Behera v. State of Orissa 2005(2) OLR 386 and stated that since no prima facie case has been made out against the Petitioner and the co-accused persons who faced trial have been acquitted, chance of conviction of the Petitioner being totally bleak, the order of cognizance and the proceeding against the Petitioner in the aforesaid criminal proceeding pending before the J.M.F.C., Sohela may be quashed. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the Petitioner though was named as a co-accused in the F.I.R. and was also named as an accused in the charge sheet submitted in the case, he remained as an absconder and, therefore, did not face trial and should not be permitted to take advantage of an order of acquittal passed in the case of co-accused persons. 4. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the respective parties and also on perusing the judgment in S.T. Case No. 150 of 2004 dated 8.10.2004, rendered by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Padmapur, I am of the considered view that even though an absconder ought not to be normally extended the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of a co-accused, but on perusing the judgment, as noted hereinabove, it is found that, P.W.11, a Police Sub-Inspector not only was the informant but was also the Investigating Officer. This fact itself is adequate for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceeding. This fact itself is adequate for the purpose of quashing the criminal proceeding. It is well settled in law that no police officer ought to be permitted to act both as an "informant" as well as the "Investigating Officer", since the rules of natural justice clearly require that in the event of police officer become the informant, he should not conduct the investigation into the said case, since the said case police officer would have to give evidence as a witness in course of trial. In this case P.W.11's evidence and his F.I.R. as well as the filing of charge sheet on completion of the investigation becomes the basis of the trial. 5. Apart from the above, the trial court has taken into account the fact that, the prosecution evidence regarding the alleged "preparation of dacoity" is based on the alleged confession of a co-accused, Shankar (who had faced trial) which evidence is clearly not admissible. There exists no other evidence to show that the accused persons were making any preparation of committing dacoity apart from the confession of the co-accused. Reliance was correctly placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chaturi Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1979 C L J 1090 in this regard. Further, since admitted that he had first effected the seizure of iron rod and iron pipes at the cremation ground on the alleged confession of the accused Shankar leading to recovery of the said articles, obviously the F.I.R. itself had not been drawn up at that point of time and, therefore, no investigation could be said to have been taken prior to filing of the F.I.R. Therefore, since the said co-accused Shankar was admittedly not in the custody of police as an "accused" at the time of leading to recovery as required under law, any recovery or confession before the police regarding the occurrence is clearly not admissible u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. 6. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and the evidence of the present case, I am of the considered view that no real purpose would be served by directing the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present Petitioner, since the chance of conviction of the Petitioner is totally bleak. 6. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and the evidence of the present case, I am of the considered view that no real purpose would be served by directing the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the present Petitioner, since the chance of conviction of the Petitioner is totally bleak. Apart from the aforesaid fact, from the judgment passed by the trial court as referred in above, it is clear there from that, no prima facie case has been made out against the Petitioner for the alleged offences and the principal accused persons who purportedly made the confession before the P.W.11-Investigating Officer and had purportedly led to the recovery of various material objects connected to the alleged crime have already been acquitted, after a full fledged trial. 7. Therefore, the G.R. Case No. 223(A) of 2003 (Arising out of Sohela P.S. Case No. 103 of 2003) pending before the learned J.M.F.C., Sohela is directed to be quashed against the present Petitioner-Chirantan Sahu. Accordingly, the CRLMC is allowed in terms of the direction noted hereinabove. Application allowed. Final Result : Allowed