Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1161 (RAJ)

Ganga Ram Suyal v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-19

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.7.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur whereby the Revisional Court affirmed the order dated 6.6.2009 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. No. 3, Udaipur in Criminal Case I No. 126/2007 framing charge against the petitioner for the offence under Sections 3/7 and 8/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 285 I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the Circle Officer, Udaipur I acting on a prior information recovered certain quantity of liquid styled to be I solvent from a person named Om Singh. Om Singh was not found to be I possessing any licence etc., for the solvent and accordingly he was booked for 1 the offence under the E.C. Act read with Section 3 of the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale Storage and Prevention of Use in Automobiles) Order, 2000. It is alleged that Om Singh on being interrogated disclosed that he had purchased the solvent in question from the petitioner. On the basis of the I investigation a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and Om Singh under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. At the stage of framing of the charges, the petitioner contested the same. The petitioner at the stage of framing of charges raised the contention of innocence on two grounds; firstly that he had not sold any solvent to any person illegally and secondly that the only material on the basis whereof the petitioner had been charge sheeted was the confessional statement of the co-accused recorded by the I.O. which was not admissible in evidence. 3. The Trial Court, however, proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner as stated above and the Revisional Court affirmed the order framing I charge. Hence, the petitioner has now approached this Court by way of the (instant miscellaneous petition seeking quashing of the order framing charge against him. 4. Learned Counsel submits that when the stock of the petitioner was checked by the I.O., no deficiency was found therein. Learned Counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid fact, it is apparent that there being no substantive evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence, charge has wrongly been framed against the petitioner. He thus prays that the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the offence. 5. Learned Counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid fact, it is apparent that there being no substantive evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence, charge has wrongly been framed against the petitioner. He thus prays that the petitioner deserves to be discharged from the offence. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the charge-sheet. 7. From a bare perusal of the charge-sheet it is apparent that the prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the petitioner has relied upon the confessional statement of the co-accused made to the Police Officers that he (had purchased the solvent in question from the petitioner. No documentary evidence i.e. to say any deficiency in the record of the petitioner's licensed business was collected during the course of investigation for establishing the involvement of the petitioner as an accused in this case. Apart from the confession of the co-accused recorded by the I.O., there is no other evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with the offence. 8. Undisputedly, the petitioner is a licenced dealer of solvent. On a bare perusal of the charge sheet, it is apparent that the sole piece of evidence which the prosecution has relied upon for charge sheeting the petitioner is disclosure of the co-accused Om Singh made to the I.O. and nothing beyond that. The confessional statement of an accused recorded by a Police Officer is inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. That apart even if such statement is held to be of some relevance on the basis of discovery of an incriminating fact then too, the statement/disclosure would be admissible against the maker thereof and not against the co-accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR (1998) SC 3258 considered the aspect of admissibility of a confession of an accused against a co-accused and held that the confessional statement made by an accused cannot be used against the co-accused. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the order framing against the petitioner is absolutely without justification and the charge which has been framed against the petitioner is groundless. 9. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the order framing against the petitioner is absolutely without justification and the charge which has been framed against the petitioner is groundless. 9. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The order dated 6.6.2009 passed by the A.C.J.M. No. 3, Udaipur in Case No. 126/2007 framing charge against the petitioner is hereby quashed. The miscellaneous petition is allowed in the above terms. The stay application is also disposed of. *******