JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Both the petitions are heard analogously and proposed to be disposed of by this common judgment and order. These petitions are directed against a common judgment and order dated 15.7.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam, Guwahati in Special Case No. 3 of 2009 by which charge was framed against the accused petitioners under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short P.C. Act only) read with Section 120B, IPC. 2. The facts of the case which led to framing of charge against the accused petitioners are that one Sri N.G. Khamrang, Inspector of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch (ACB), Guwahati lodged an FIR on 24.1.2009 with Superintendent of Police, CBI ACB stating inter alia that one Shri Bidhi Chand Dhiman, who was deputed as Nodal Officer to liaise with CBI relating to allegation of sub-standard construction/repairing of bye lanes by the NBCC requested him on 20.1.2009 to close the matter and induced to bribe the informant. The said B.C. Dhiman again came on 24.1.2009 at 11.45 a.m. to informant's office and made the same request to him. The accused-petitioner, Shri B.C. Dhiman induced to bribe Rs. 5 lacs for which he intended to come back to CBI office at Guwahati at 2 p.m. on the same day to hand over the bribe amount of Rs. 5 lacs. The informant informed the matter the CBI/ACB Guwahati Branch, Guwahati who registered a crime being RC. 2(A)/2009 GWH under Section 12 of the P.C. Act read with Section 120B, IPC and endorsed the case for investigation to one Sri Rohit Kapoor, Addl. S.P. CBI, ACB, Guwahati. After registration of the case the I.O. prepared a pre-trap memorandum in presence of witnesses and thereafter laid a trap to apprehend the accused petitioner Shri B.C. Dhiman, who came to informant's office and was caught red handed while offering bribe amount of Rs. 5 lacs to the informant Sri N.G. Khamrang. The said events were also secretly filmed in video camera. The I.O. examined several witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr PC and submitted charge-sheet under Section 120B, IPC and Section 12 of the P.C. Act. The learned Special Judge on perusal and upon consideration of the materials on record passed the impugned order dated 15.7.2011 framing charge against them under the said sections of law. 3. The I.O. examined several witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr PC and submitted charge-sheet under Section 120B, IPC and Section 12 of the P.C. Act. The learned Special Judge on perusal and upon consideration of the materials on record passed the impugned order dated 15.7.2011 framing charge against them under the said sections of law. 3. The prime accused, as projected by the prosecution is Shri B.C. Dhiman. The impugned order framing charge against the prime accused Shri Bidhi Chand Dhiman has been challenged mainly on the ground that the alleged confessional statements of the accused petitioner made before the police officer is not admissible in evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act inasmuch as no confession, as per settled law, made to police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence and confession made by accused petitioner while in police custody should not be proved against him. Moreover a confession made by an accused to a police officer is protected under Section 162 of the Cr PC and Section 26 of the Evidence Act. The other ground taken by the accused petitioner Shri B.C. Dhiman is that the cash amount of Rs. 5 lacs allegedly seized by the CBI were never produced in the Court during the course of investigation nor any seal and signature of the Court was obtained on it which is mandatory on the part of the I.O. to immediately produce the case property before the Court during investigation of the case. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is argued by Mr. Alam, learned counsel for the accused petitioner that the investigation was conducted by the I.O. was perfunctory in nature inasmuch as the I.O. did not make any prayer before the Court for recording his statements under Section 164, Cr PC. Although the accused person was produced before the Magistrate which clearly belies the prosecution story as held by this Court in Danti Ram Reang v. State of Tripura, reported in 2010 (4) GLT 538. 4. In my considered view, the above grounds are not sustainable under the law inasmuch as the law as regards framing of charge is that the trial Court is only to find out whether the materials collected by the prosecution are sufficient to presume that he is involved in/connected with the case and not to establish the guilt. 4. In my considered view, the above grounds are not sustainable under the law inasmuch as the law as regards framing of charge is that the trial Court is only to find out whether the materials collected by the prosecution are sufficient to presume that he is involved in/connected with the case and not to establish the guilt. I have gone through the records as made available by the learned counsel for the CBI. The pre-trap and post-trap proceedings were held in presence of 3(three) non-official witnesses, whose statements were also recorded by the I.O. supporting the prosecution case amongst the three independent witnesses, one is a photographer, who was present with his video camera at the time of pre-trap and post-trap. His statements were also recorded under Section 161, Cr PC who amongst other stated that in presence of independent witnesses he copied the contents of the video cassette on to a computer through video camera with the help of a cable and thereafter transferred the contents of the said proceedings recorded on computer to three compact disks. No fault on the part of the prosecution can be attributed for not making any prayer by the I.O. before the Court for recording statements under Section 164, Cr PC and illegality/irregularity in framing charge on that score. The materials found are that the accused petitioner Shri B.C. Dhiman visited the informant's office and he offered the cash amount of Rs. 5 lacs and prima facie these materials are sufficient to cause suspicion on the said accused petitioner and frame charge against him which the prosecution is bound to prove and if the prosecution fails to prove the charge the accused petitioner would be entitled to acquittal. The learned Special Judge, committed no error or illegality in framing the charge against the prime accused Shri B.C. Dhiman and I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order so far it relates to him. There is no merit in this case and accordingly the petition stands dismissed. 5. The learned Special Judge, committed no error or illegality in framing the charge against the prime accused Shri B.C. Dhiman and I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order so far it relates to him. There is no merit in this case and accordingly the petition stands dismissed. 5. The accused petitioner Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal challenges the impugned order framing charge by the learned trial Court mainly on the ground that there is no material connecting him with the alleged conspiracy and offering bribe money to the informant inasmuch as the informant in his FIR, did not mention about the same and the main accused Sri B.C. Dhiman, never stated that he made the alleged conspiracy in league with the petitioner and offered the bribe money arranged by him. The specific ground taken by the petitioner is that the prosecution in order to connect the petitioner somehow, as a matter of afterthought, recorded the second statements of some so called independent witnesses claimed to have been present during pre-trap and post-trap proceedings, who did to implicate the present petitioner in their first/initial statements recorded under Section 161, Cr PC. 6. Mr. Kamar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court while framing the charge did not apply its judicial mind and passed the impugned order mechanically and acted merely as a post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution which is discouraged by the Apex Court in several cases including Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & anr., reported in AIR 1979 SC 366 and in Dilawar Babu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2002 SC 564 . The learned trial Court, according to him, failed to evaluate the materials and documents to find out whether facts emerging therefrom disclose all the ingredients of alleged offence as mandated in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. jitendra Bhimraj Bijja, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1962 , Bikash Das @ Ranadhir Das v. State of Tripura, reported in 2009 (3) GLT 137. Citing the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja, reported in 1990 Cri. L.J. 1869, it is submitted that Court is not expected even at the initial stage to accept all that prosecution stated as gospel truth. Citing the case of Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja, reported in 1990 Cri. L.J. 1869, it is submitted that Court is not expected even at the initial stage to accept all that prosecution stated as gospel truth. He would also refer to Mohd Aqil v. State of Delhi, reported in 1988 Cri LJ 1484, to make a point that if two views are possible and the Judge is satisfied he would be fully within the right to discharge the accused. According to him, two views are possible in this case. One is of innocence of the accused petitioner for not being able to collect any substantial material against him and the other of guilt based on incriminating circumstances. Here again the circumstances projected by the prosecution are too weak to be treated as a strong incriminating circumstances for being used as a basis for framing charge. 7. The other ground taken by the petitioner is that there is no direct and circumstantial evidence/materials to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence under Section 120B, IPC. The prosecution mechanically inserted the aforesaid sections and the learned trial Court also equally mechanically framed the charge under Section 120B, IPC against that present petitioner along with the main accused and thereby violated the mandate of the Apex Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C. Shukla, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1382 and in Vijayan alias Rajan v. State of Kerala, reported in 1999 Cri LJ 1638. 8. Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned counsel places the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-CBI and submits that the above submissions made by Mr. Kamar are nothing but repetition of the submissions made before the learned trial Court and the said submissions were duly considered at the time of consideration of charges. The impugned order is quite elaborate, reasoned, speaking and as per the existing settled position of law which requires no interference by this Court. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned order on mis-appreciation of facts involved in the case and misinterpretation of law regarding framing of charges. Mr. The impugned order is quite elaborate, reasoned, speaking and as per the existing settled position of law which requires no interference by this Court. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned order on mis-appreciation of facts involved in the case and misinterpretation of law regarding framing of charges. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel submits that the I.O. collected sufficient materials to the effect that both the accused persons had conversation at about 1.30 p.m. which was a few minutes after which the prime accused Sri B.C. Dhiman was trapped by respondents at their office at Guwahati while trying to bribe the informant Mr. M.G. Khamrang and thereafter the present accused petitioner reached Shillong at about 3.45 p.m. on 4th January, 2009 and thereafter fled to a border area called Ballard where NBCC has a site office and on reaching there at about 10 p.m., although the next two days were non-working days on account of being Sunday (25.1.2009) and Republic Day (26.1.2009). These events are supported by call details of Mobile No. 9436334962 which belongs to accused petitioner Sri P.K. Mittal as supplied by the BSNL, Shillong. In regard to framing of charge under Section 120B, IPC, supporting the reliance put on the decision in West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 274 and Onkar Nath Mishra & ors v. State (NCT of Delhi and another) reported in (2008) 2 SCC 561 , by the learned trial Court, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent CBI presses into service another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Badri Rai & another v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1958 SC 953 . The facts of the said case are similar to the present case inasmuch as it was also a case of conspiracy to bribe police officer to hush up case against one of the conspirators. In regard to recording of confessional statement he refers to State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde and Ors., reported in 2000 Cri LJ 2301. It was a case where confession recorded almost a full month after accused was removed from police custody to judicial custody was accepted in evidence for convicting the accused. 9. In regard to recording of confessional statement he refers to State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde and Ors., reported in 2000 Cri LJ 2301. It was a case where confession recorded almost a full month after accused was removed from police custody to judicial custody was accepted in evidence for convicting the accused. 9. Last of all the learned counsel for the respondent-CBI submits that there is no bar in law to recording further statements of witnesses and relying on the further disclosures of facts found in such further statements. There is also no bar to putting leading question to the witness and recording the statement inasmuch as it does not violate any laid down principle of law and the investigating authorities have the prerogative of asking the witnesses by adopting certain technique in order to extract and unleash the true facts and circumstances of the case so that proper case can be laid down before the Court for consideration and just trial of the case. On the basis of aforesaid law, no irregularity or illegality is attributable to the investigating authorities of the present case in recording second statement under Section 161, Cr PC in respect of some witnesses and the new facts and disclosures made by them are acceptable in evidence. The learned trial Court, according to him, committed no error in law in taking into consideration the said new disclosure in the second statement clearly mentioning that the present petitioner Sri P.K. Mittal handed over the bribe amount of Rs. 5 lac to the prime accused Shri B.C. Dhiman at Hotel Grand Starline and this new material found in the course of investigation is sufficient to rope on the accused petitioner and frame charge against him. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petition is liable to be dismissed, argues the learned counsel for the respondent CBI. 10. I have carefully perused the records as produced by the learned counsel for the CBI and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 11. There cannot be any dispute that Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal has not been named as an accused in the FIR. The main accused was arrested on 24.1.2009 at 14.45 hours. The I.O. recorded the statements of independent witness Sri Ashok Kumar Talukdar on 29.1.2009 under Section 161, Cr PC. 11. There cannot be any dispute that Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal has not been named as an accused in the FIR. The main accused was arrested on 24.1.2009 at 14.45 hours. The I.O. recorded the statements of independent witness Sri Ashok Kumar Talukdar on 29.1.2009 under Section 161, Cr PC. This independent witness as stated was present at the time of pre-trap and post-trap proceedings and preparation of CDs and discreet videography taken on 24.1.09. I have gone through his aforesaid statements. He has stated nothing about the co-accused Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal. There is no indication in his statement that main accused was sent by co-accused Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal to hand over the cash amount of Rs. 5 lacs. He has also not stated that the main accused and the co-accused were in league and hatched a conspiracy to get the complaint against them closed or hushed up by the informant and for that purpose they have delivered the said cash amount to the informant. He was further examined by the I.O. for recording his statement under Section 161, Cr PC on 25.2.2009; i.e. after about one month. The I.O. put a question to him like this- Q.--Is it a fact that when questioned by the CBI officials on 24.01.2009, Sh. B.C. Dhiman had disclosed the name of Sh. P.K. Mittal as the person who had arranged the bribe amount of Rs 5,00,000/-? In reply to the said question the witness stated that Sh. B.C. Dhiman disclosed the name of one "Mittal Sahib" as the person who handed over the bribe amount of Rs. 5 lacs to him at Hotel Grand Starline. 12. Putting of such question is neither permissible nor desirable under the law inasmuch as it is provided under Section 161, Cr PC that recording of statements of witness should be in singular person and not by asking leading questions. The I.O. put the above leading question to the said witnesses and by doing so he put the required answers in the mouth of the witnesses so as to nail and fasten the co-accused. This leading question was put to connect the co-accused as his name was not mentioned by the main accused at no point of time and even in the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. 13. This leading question was put to connect the co-accused as his name was not mentioned by the main accused at no point of time and even in the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. 13. The second independent witness Sri Ridip Ranjan Barthakur who was reportedly present at the pre-trap and post trap proceedings was also examined and his statement was recorded by the I.O. on 31.1.2009. Like the statement of Ashok Kumar Talukdar there is no mention or reference of co-accused Pradeep Kumar Mittal. This witness was also examined for the second time by the I.O. on 21.2.2009. The same leading question was put to him by the I.O. and obtained exactly the same reply. 14. Just after recording the first statement of the said witness, the I.O. recorded the statement of 3rd witness Sri Arup Jyoti Barman on 10.2.2009. This 3rd witness was examined much later i.e. after a gap of 17, days from the date of pre-trap to post-trap proceedings held on 24.1.2009. The; prosecution has not explained this delay But the I.O. recorded the statement of this 3rd witness who reportedly stated that from the contents of the proceedings which was clearly audible that Sri B.C. Dhiman disclosed the name of one "Mittal Sahib" as the person who arranged the money when he was questioned by the CBI officials. The said witness also stated that he has disclosed that the said amount of Rs. 5 lacs was given to him by "Mittal Sahib". From the record it is ascertained that the 2nd statement of first independent witness Sri Ashok Kr. Talukdar was recorded under Section 161, Cr PC after one month from the date of occurrence. Similarly the 2nd statements of 2nd witness was recorded after 24 days. The reason for such recording of 2nd statement of these two witnesses have not been furnished or found on record. The law under the Cr PC requires that the I.O. should examine the witnesses and record their statement under Section 161, Cr PC immediately after the registration of the case. The unexplained delay casts doubt on the bona fide of the action of the I.O. It is already noted above that these two witnesses in their first statement disclosed nothing against co-accused Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal and the I.O. could realise that the said first statement of these two witnesses are of no use or help to the prosecution. The unexplained delay casts doubt on the bona fide of the action of the I.O. It is already noted above that these two witnesses in their first statement disclosed nothing against co-accused Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal and the I.O. could realise that the said first statement of these two witnesses are of no use or help to the prosecution. The I.O. could, by then, realise that it was necessary to have the support of some independent witnesses who were present at the pre-trap or post-trap proceedings to build up a strong prima facie case against co-accused. The move of the I.O. in recording the 2nd statement of these two independent witnesses is easily discernible. Between the events of recording first statement on 29.1.2009/31.1.2009 and 2nd statement on 25.2.2009/21.2.2009, the I.O. recorded the statement of 3rd I witness Sri Arup Jyoti Barman on 10.2.2009. By the time the statement of 3rd witness was recorded on 10.2.2009, the I.O. could further realise that he could not collect any material to implicate the co-accused Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal inasmuch as he could not obtain any statement from the first and 2nd statements of the independent witnesses which the I.O. badly needed to get some incriminating statements from the 3rd witness. Because of such realisation, the statement of 3rd witness was recorded on 10.2.2009 for the first time under Section 161, Cr PC after a gap of 16 days from the date of occurrence. Taking queue from the incriminating statement of 3rd witness, the I.O. resorted to recording of 2nd statement of the first and 2nd witness. The recording of statement of 3rd witness after 16 days from the date of occurrence is also not free from doubt. 15. It is noteworthy that the 2nd statement of the independent witness Nos. 1 and 2 aforesaid were recorded when the main accused Sri B.C. Dhiman was already in police custody and the I.O. took no initiative to produce the said main accused before any Magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164, Cr PC The I.O. chose not to get any confessional statement of the main accused recorded and in fact from record it appears that no prayer was made before the Court when the accused was produced before the Court on 25.1.2009. On the contrary it was the bounden duty of the I.O. of the case to get the statements of the accused recorded under Section 164, Cr PC by a Magistrate when the accused is a self-confessing one and failure to do so must be accepted that there was no statement made by the main accused implicating the co-accused by uttering the words "Mittal Sahib" so as to connect him with the case. It is because of the settled position of law that confession made by the accused before the police of whatever rank, it cannot be taken into consideration as the same is inadmissible under the law. 16. Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act make it clear that no confession made to the police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence and confession made by the accused while in police custody should not be proved against him. In the present case there is no iota of evidence either direct or circumstantial or 'documentary/oral, except the statement of the main accused to show that co-accused Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal is involved in the offence. 17. As regards the discreet videography of the event of giving bribe by the main accused, I have gone through the record and found that the VCD was never produced in the Court nor any endorsement of the Court to that effect was obtained during investigation of the case and as such, it casts serious doubt on genuineness of the events filmed and words spoken by the main accused. Moreover, the alleged bribe money of Rs. 5 lacs seized by the CBI was never produced in the Court during the course of investigation nor any seal and signature of the Court was obtained on it. It is also found that the seizure list was not produced before the Court to get it endorsed by the Court concerned. 18. As for existence of strong circumstances against the accused present petitioner, the prosecution has relied on his alleged connection with the main accused person Sri B.C. Dhiman. As per the prosecution, they used to meet very often and stay in a particular hotel whenever they visit Guwahati on official and non-official business/works. They met in the said particular hotel before the bribe money was offered and handed over to informant by the main accused. As per the prosecution, they used to meet very often and stay in a particular hotel whenever they visit Guwahati on official and non-official business/works. They met in the said particular hotel before the bribe money was offered and handed over to informant by the main accused. There is no material on record that both the accused petitioners met at Guwahati for conspiracy, arrangement of money to bribe the police officer and get the matter against them dropped. Unless there is some material to that effect the prosecution cannot be allowed to entertain any presumption against the accused petitioner Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal. It is to be borne in mind that both the accused persons are officials of the same organisation and they are meeting at Guwahati for both official and non-official works. No doubt charge can be framed against accused persons if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence but certainly such presumption cannot be based on no material. In the present case the learned Court below has given much emphasis on the meeting of the accused persons in a particular hotel at Guwahati without trying to ascertain and satisfying itself that there are materials prima facie evidencing making of conspiracy to bribe the informant-police officer to achieve their goal. Moreover, it is apparent that till the alleged offer of bribe money there was no case registered and pending against the accused petitioners and the complaint against them was under enquiry and at that stage, it is not expected that the accused petitioners would indulge themselves in making conspiracy and offering money to any police officer. 19. The case of Badri Rai (supra) cited by the CBI apparently looks similar to the present case, both being cases of bribing police officer. But there is difference in the material facts. In the said cited case both the accused appellants approached the police Inspector to hush up the case against one of the accused for which he would be amply rewarded and there was clear evidence of both the accused persons having conspired to commit the offence of bribing the public servant and the necessary ingredients like common intention in conspiring to offer bribe were present. One of the accused persons made statement at the very initial stage that he had been sent by the other accused to make the offer of bribe in order to hush up the case which was then under investigation. In the said circumstances it was held that such material is admissible not only against the maker of the statement but also against the other accused against whom statements were made. But in the present case, nothing of the said facts are found because the prime accused Sri B.C. Dhiman never stated before the police that he was sent by the present accused petitioner to deliver the bribe amount to execute the conspiracy made by them. As observed earlier the prosecution imported the story of conspiracy made by the accused petitioner through the second statements of some witnesses had no personal knowledge or information about such conspiracy but who came to know only during discreet videography prepared in the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. In my considered view, the prosecution cannot claim benefit from the aforecited judgment inasmuch as the second statement of some witnesses were recorded as a matter of afterthought to import material against the present accused petitioner to link him with the case. This view is taken by me because it is unbelievable that the I.O. who was accompanied by other police officer at the time of pre-trap and post-trap sessions, if it was so disclosed in the videography/screening that the prime accused Sri B.C. Dhiman made incriminating statements against himself and the co-accused, would not record any statement of the independent witnesses like Sri Ashok Kumar Talukdar, Shri Ridip Ranjan Barthakur and Sri Arup Jyoti Barman. Admittedly, the I.O. did not record any statement of the said' witnesses at the very moment when the important disclosure was made by the prime accused. The I.O. remained satisfied with alleged recording of events in the videography. The I.O. concerned who was in the rank of Addl. S.P., knew the importance of recording such statement at the first opportunity and he also knew the consequence of failure on his part in recording the statement, yet he chose to defer it to next occasion for recording second statement. I have already discussed earlier about the reasons for not accepting the second statement of aforesaid independent star witnesses. S.P., knew the importance of recording such statement at the first opportunity and he also knew the consequence of failure on his part in recording the statement, yet he chose to defer it to next occasion for recording second statement. I have already discussed earlier about the reasons for not accepting the second statement of aforesaid independent star witnesses. For the same reasons, I would also say that the second statements of aforesaid witnesses cannot be the basis for linking the accused petitioner Sri P.K. Mittal to the present case and framing charge against him. 20. In a case under Section 12 of the P.C. Act read with Section 120B, IPC the prosecution has to show clinching material on record that the accused persons conspired to do an illegal act and if the prosecution fails to bring any such material on record which have a vital bearing with the matter of framing of charge, then the evaluation made by the Court for satisfying itself that all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence exist, would be vitiated and in such a case, calling upon the accused to face the trial would be a travesty of justice. In such a case, framing of charge and calling upon the accused to go through the entire gamut of trial would tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court. Merely because the present accused petitioner knew the prime accused of the case, it cannot be said that the accused conspired together to bribe the informant. On the face of materials admittedly collected by the prosecution that the alleged offence was committed after the present accused petitioner left Guwahati for Shillong and then to his official construction site at Ballat in Meghalaya. Even admitting that the prime accused Sri B.C. Dhiman made confessional statement before the police officials in presence of some independent witnesses, it cannot be used against him without there being any other evidence to support the charge and the accused cannot be asked to face the trial. Even admitting that the prime accused Sri B.C. Dhiman made confessional statement before the police officials in presence of some independent witnesses, it cannot be used against him without there being any other evidence to support the charge and the accused cannot be asked to face the trial. In the present case, there being no evidence, either direct or circumstantial, against the present petitioner, the confessional statement of the prime accused Sri B.C. Dhiman cannot be used against the co-accused Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal and in that view of the matter, it can be held that the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the accused petitioner Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal would amount to abuse of process of the Court. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons criminal petition No. 474 of 2011 is allowed and consequently, the charge framed against the accused petitioner Sri Pradeep Kumar Mittal is quashed. Petition allowed.