ABDUL HAKIM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is seeking anticipatory' bail in this Court, by filing an application under Section 438 Cr. P.C. on the ground that he is implicated in a case registered by the respondent in R.R. No. 6 of 1997, for the offence under Section 135(1) of the Customs Act.

(2.) IT is stated in the petition that he is innocent and has not committed any offence, that he has no involvement in the alleged offence, and that merely on the basis of the confession, alleged to have been recorded on 144 -1997, from one Jayachandran, a passenger bound for Sharjah, at Anna International Airport, Chennai, resulting in the seizure of his baggage, containing various foreign currency notes to the Indian value of Rs.57 lakhs and odd, the petitioner has been implicated in this case.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner would also cite an authority rendered by this Court re -ported in, 1990 (2) M.W.N. (Crl.) 60 (P. Pulla Rao v. State), in which it is held that "confession of a co -accused can never form the foundation of the prosecution case as against the other accused, unless there is evidence aliunde implicating the other accused in the offence." In the said decision, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court granted bail to the accused, holding that the confession of the co -accused implicating the other accused is not sufficient to hold that there are enough materials, in view of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, in which it does use the phraseology "may take into consideration", in consideration of the confession of the accused in this case, but the said Section does not at all use the phraseology "read as evidence."