HARBANS SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition against the order of framing of charge against them under Section 489-B and 489-C IPC.

(2.) On the basis of a secret information received by the police, Jagdish @ Disha co-accused of the petitioners was apprehended with counterfeit currency notes. When he was apprehended on 07.04.2011, said currency notes were recovered from him. As per the petitioners, Jagdish suffered a confessional statement that he had bought the said currency notes to petitioners. On this ground, the petitioners were apprehended. Grievance of the petitioners is that there is no other evidence collected by the investigating agency and still the challan has been filed against the petitioners and a charge has been framed against them.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the statement made by Jagdish would be of confessional in nature and not admissible in view of the provisions of Sections 25 & 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If it is treated as a disclosure statement, nothing was recovered pursuant to said disclosure statement made and as such. The statement otherwise would not be admissible in evidence. In support, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before me various judgments like Avdhesh Kumar Vs. The State (Delhi), 1983 23 DLT 482, Lekh ram Vs. State, 2000 83 DLT 684, Reman Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2008 CrLJ 4755, Lohit Kaushal Vs. State of Haryana, 2009 17 SCC 106.