IMTIAZ AHMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is Accused No.2 in CC No.210/2014 pending on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, [Special Judge], Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.

(2.) The facts leading to the prosecution of the petitioner are as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'RADHESHYAM KEJRIWAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, 2011 266 ELT 294' [S.C.], and has emphasized that the petitioner having been exonerated on merits in the adjudication proceedings conducted by the competent authority under the Act and the allegations found to be not sustainable, criminal prosecution on same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being 'higher standard of proof' in criminal cases. Further, placing reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench in 'HARICHARAN KURMI v. STATE OF BIHAR, 1964 AIR(SC) 1184', learned counsel would contend that even on merits, prosecution of the petitioner is sought to be substantiated solely on the basis of confession of the co-accused. Courts have consistently held that confession of co-accused cannot be considered as offence of substantive nature against co-accused person. It is the submission of the learned counsel that, barring the alleged confession statement of Accused No.1, no other material is available to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner and moreover, petitioner having been prosecuted on the allegations which are already adjudicated by the competent authority and having been found false and baseless, prosecution of the petitioner is wholly illegal and amounts to abuse of process of court. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the factual findings noted by the CESTAT and has sought for quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.