Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 514 (MP)

RAMSINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2017-04-17

VED PRAKASH SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') praying for quashment of First Information Report and charge-sheet in Crime No.120/2014, Police Station Suwasara, Distt. Mandsaur. 2. As per prosecution, on the basis of secret information received by police on 03.04.2014 officials of police station Suwasara intercepted a jeep bearing registration No.RJ-17-C-0637 near Amba Fanta situated at Runija Dug Road, Mandsaur. Allegedly, the person driving the vehicle fled away from the spot seeing the police. Total 2 quintals and 80 kilogram of poppy husk kept in 11 gunny bags was found lying in the vehicle. The same was recovered. Samples were taken and all the material was properly sealed on the spot. During investigation, one Dara Singh, who, allegedly, was driving the vehicle at the relevant time and fled away from the spot, was arrested. As per prosecution Darasingh on interrogation disclosed that he procured the poppy husk from petitioner Ramsingh. On the basis of this information, petitioner Ramsingh was also apprehended and after investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed in the matter. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accusation against him is solely based on the disclosure said to have been made on 11.04.2014 by co-accused Darasingh that he procured the poppy husk from the petitioner. The contention is that the disclosure so made by the petitioner is not a legally admissible evidence within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act because no fact as such has been discovered on the basis thereof. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has not disputed that the complicity of the petitioner is solely based on the disclosure said to have been made by co-accused Darasingh. It is further fairly conceded that as such no fact was discovered on the basis of the disclosure said to have been made by Darasingh. 5. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in terms, provides that only that information which distinctly relates to the discovery of fact is admissible in evidence. In the landmark decision of Privy Council in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 , it has been held that unless there is discovery of fact, statement made u/S.27 of the Evidence Act has no evidentiary value. 6. In the landmark decision of Privy Council in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 , it has been held that unless there is discovery of fact, statement made u/S.27 of the Evidence Act has no evidentiary value. 6. Considering the aforesaid legal position and in view of the fact that the accusation against the petitioner is solely based on the disclosure said to have been made by co-accused Darasingh which is not led to discovery of any fact within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is found to be a fit case for quashment of FIR and all criminal proceedings consequent thereto in Crime No.120/2014 registered in the Police Station Suwasara, Mandsaur. 7. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed and FIR and charge-sheet bearing Crime No.120/2014 registered in the Police Station Suwasara, Mandsaur and all criminal proceedings qua the petitioner are hereby quashed. Cc as per rules.