Crl.RC.No.1258 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.09.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Criminal Revision Case No.1258 of 2022
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.13635 and 13637 of 2022
Karan Talwar ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Inspector of Police
Anamalai Police Station
Coimbatore District ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, praying to set aside the impugned order dated
26.07.2022 passed by the file of the Additional District Court/Special Court
under Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore, in CMP No.586 of
2020 in C.C.No.43 of 2020 and consequently, allow CMP No.586 of 2020
in C.No.43 of 2020, discharge the petitioner/A13 from C.C.No.43 of 2020
on the file of the Additional District Court/Special Court under Essential
Commodities.
For Petitioner : Mr.Karthick, Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Palaniandavan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.RC.No.1258 of 2022
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 26.07.2022 passed by the Additional District Court/Special Court under Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore, in CMP No.586 of 2020 in C.C.No.43 of 2020 and consequently, discharge the petitioner/A13.
2. The respondent police registered a case against the petitioner and others in Crime No.129 of 2019 and after investigation, laid charge sheet before the Additional District Court/Special Court under Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore, for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(c), 25, 27(a), 29(1), of NDPS Act and Sections 3, 13 of the TN Places of Public Resort Act, 1888 and Section 120B of IPC and the petitioner has been arrayed as A13. The Special Judge, taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.43 of 2020 and during pendency of the case, the petitioner herein had filed a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the case in C.C.No.43 of 2020. The said petition was taken on file by the learned Special Judge in C.M.P.No.586 of 2020 and after giving opportunity to both the parties and completing the enquiry, the learned 2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1258 of 2022 Special Judge dismissed the said petition by order dated 26.07.2022. Now challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.
3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no reliable evidence to connect this revision petitioner in this case. Further, the confession statement of the petitioner is inadmissible in evidence as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the confession statement recorded by the Police Officer against the petitioner is also inadmissible. He would submit that based on the inadmissible documents, the petitioner cannot be convicted. Except the confession statements said to have been recorded by the Police Officer, there is no other material available to connect this petitioner in this case and without any materials, facing trial is nothing but futile exercise. He further submitted that the Investigating Agency has not subjected the petitioner to any medical examination and without any medical records, the confession statement alone is not sufficient to convict the accused and therefore, the petitioner need not face the ordeal of trial. Hence, the petitioner has to be discharged from this case. The learned Special Judge failed to appreciate the 3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1258 of 2022 materials placed before him by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C., and the official report and simply dismissed the petition which, warrants interference of this Court. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the following Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court;
1. Century Spinning and Mnufacturing Co. Ltd. and Others reported in (1972) 3 SCC 282
2. Adhithya Santhosh represented by his Father, Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2020 SCC Online Ker 353
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that most of the witnesses namely L.Ws.1, 4, 5, 7, 17, 18 and 23 have categorically stated that the petitioner admitted the commission of offence and out of the said witnesses, L.Ws.17 and 18 are not police officials and they are only revenue officials. Even from their statements recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., it is clear that the revision petitioner is involved in the alleged offence. At the time of framing of charges, the Court has to see only the materials from the final report filed by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and not the defence taken by 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1258 of 2022 the accused. Therefore, the trial Court rightly appreciated the materials placed before it by the Investigating Officer and rightly dismissed the petition. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials on record.
6. Admittedly, the respondent police registered the case against the petitioner and others in Crime No.129 of 2019 and after investigation, laid charge sheet before the Special Court for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 22(c), 25, 27(a), 29(1), of NDPS Act and Sections 3, 13 of the TN Places of Public Resort Act, 1888 and Section 120B of IPC. The Special Judge, taken the charge sheet on file in C.C.No.43 of 2020 and during pendency of the case, the petitioner herein had filed a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the case and said petition was dismissed by the Special Court. Aggrieved by the same, now the petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.
5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1258 of 2022
7. The main contention of the learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not subjected to medical examination and the prosecution only relied on the confession statement given by the revision petitioner before police official which is inadmissible as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is settled proposition of law that the confession made before the police official is not admissible in evidence. Exception is only Section 27 of the Indian evidence Act. Now the main question is that whether any sufficient materials is available against the petitioner to frame charges against him.
8. A perusal of the statements of the witnesses viz., L.Ws. 1, 4, 5, 7, 17, 18 and 23, relied on by both the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent clearly shows that at the time of securing the petitioner, he himself admitted that he had consumed drugs. Especially L.Ws.17 and 18 are not police officials. Even in their statements, they have clearly stated that when the petitioner was secured, he had admitted the commission of offence. Since he admitted that he had consumed drugs and also there was a smell from him, they did 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1258 of 2022 not subject him to medial examination. Though the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the confession statement recorded by the Police Official is inadmissible, there is no quarrel with the proposition that the confession statement recorded by the police official is inadmissible. However, if any statement made by a witness before the Police Official and subsequently when he is called as witness by the Court, if he reiterates the same before the Court and substantiates whatever the statement he made before the Police Official as true, then the Court can very well consider the same and it all can be decided only during trial. Whether the particular statement is inadmissible or not; that can be decided only at the time of framing the charges.
9. Section 227 Cr.P.C. is very clear that upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution, if the Judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing which means, if there are sufficient grounds to proceed the trial, then the trial Court can frame the charge and proceed further.
7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1258 of 2022
10. Further, whether the statements made before the Police Officials would be substantiated or not; whether any particular statement or a document is admissible or inadmissible; all that can be decided only by the trial Court at the time of trial. Therefore at the time of deciding the petition for discharge either under Section 239 Cr.P.C. or under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the Court has to see as to whether any sufficient materials are available or grounds made out to proceed further from the final report filed by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and not the defence taken by the accused.
11. Admittedly, there is no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, that an accused cannot be convicted based on the inadmissible evidence but at the same time, whether the document is admissible or inadmissible; whether the statement made by the accused is with free consent; whether the statement was recorded in the presence of non police officials especially before the gazetted officers namely Revenue Divisional Officer, District Revenue Officer, Tahisldhar and whether the Court can give effect to those 8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1258 of 2022 statements or not; all these can be decided only at the time of trial and not at this stage.
12. Under these circumstances, the citations referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the present case considering the present stage of the case. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the revision and this Court does not find any perversity, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
14.09.2022 ksa-2 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC.No.1258 of 2022 P.VELMURUGAN,J.
ksa-2 To
1. The Additional District Court / Special Court under Essential Commodities Act Cases, Coimbatore,
2. Inspector of Police Anamalai Police Station Coimbatore District
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Criminal Revision Case No.1258 of 2022 14.09.2022 10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis