ASHOK KUMAR ALIAS PAPPI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole grouse of the petitioner in this petition is that no charge under Section 411 I.P.C. could be framed against him by the Magistrate as there was no evidence before the said Court to sustain the said charge. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State, however, states that the accused while under interrogation in case. FIR No. 141 dated 20.4.1982, had made a disclosure statement that he had stolen the car from South Extension, Delhi and handed it over to one Jaimal Singh who in turn had sold it to a lady doctor, P. K. Arora, and it was in pursuance of that statement that the car was recovered by the police. But for this disclosure sure statement, the learned counsel concedes there is no other evidence on record on the basis of which the charge under section 411, I.P.C. has been framed against the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the above noted alleged disclosure statement of the petitioner cannot be treated as any legal evidence against him. This is so for the simple reason that concededly the said disclosure statement did not lead to recovery of the car in any manner. In other words it was not the petitioner who led to the recovery of the car. It was only that on the basis of certain information alleged to have been supplied by him that the car was recovered by the police from Dr. P. K. Arora.

(2.) IN view of the above discussion I find that in the absence of any legal evidence before the Court the charge under Section 411 could obviously not be framed against the petitioner. The order of the Court to that extent, therefore, stands quashed qua the petitioner.