MANSOOR ALLAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) This application under Sec. 482, Crimial P.C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.12.2003 passed in revision refusing to set aside the order of the learned Court below, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for discharge was refused.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a dacoity was committed in the house of Prakash Yadav and on the basis of statement a case was registered under Sec. 395, Penal Code and in course of investigation some other co-accused persons were arrested, who made confession before the police against the persons, who have taken part in the commission of dacoity. This petitioner was also put on T.I. Parade but he was not identified by any of the witnesses. The further contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that if there is no evidence against the petitioner, no conviction will lie against the petitioner and, therefore, continuance of this case will amount to abuse of the process of Court. In this connection, reliance was placed upon 2000 (4) PLJR 90 (SC), wherein it has been held that if the evidence which prosecution proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused and the evidence so adduced is fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or so and if it is found that no conviction can lie then such charge should be quashed. In the instant case only material available against the petitioner is that some accused persons made confession before the police by saying that this petitioner has also taken active part in the commission of dacoity but when the petitioner was put on T.I. Parade he was not identified by any of the witnesses in the TIP and even if confessional statement of co-accused is taken into consideration that will not be admissible in evidence because confession made before the police is not admissible in the eye of law.