BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C.C.No. 246 of 1990 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram has filed this petition under Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same.

(2.) THE respondent has filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Sec. 411, I.P.C. on the allegations that one Raju had committed theft of a gold thali chain that in his confession he pointed out the accused herein as the person who received the stolen property from him, that the said stolen property, viz., gold thali chain weighing 7 1/4 sovereign was seized under a mahazar, that Raju had committed an offence under Sec. 379, I.P.C. that the accused had received the said 7 1/4 sovereign of gold thali chain for Rs. 4,000 dishonestly and hence, he is liable to be punished for an offence under Sec. 411, I.P.C.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels. Mr.E. Raja pointed out that witness Nos.1 and 2 refer to the admission made by the accused that he purchased the property knowing it to be the stolen property and thus, there is a material for laying the prosecution for offence under Sec. 411, I.P.C. Mr.V. Gopinath, would repel this submission by stating that the said statement is not admissible in evidence because it was made to a police officer. He would submit that though the accused was not an accused at that time and that this admission was made at the time when the case for offence under Sec. 379 was investigated, still it is inadmissible in evidence when this accused is being prosecuted for offence under Sec. 411, I.P.C. He would rely upon State of U.P. v. Deoman, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1125. In it, the Apex Court has laid as follows: