Karan Talwar vs State Of Tamil Nadu
2022 Latest Caselaw 15270 Mad

                                                                                  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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis