9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Discharge of Accused Nos. 2 and 4 from the criminal case based on lack of prima facie evidence against them. - Legal validity of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class discharging the Accused Nos. 2 and 4. - Interpretation of evidence and statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 in relation to launching a prosecution. Analysis: The judgment involves a criminal revision application filed against the order discharging Accused Nos. 2 and 4 from a complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The complaint alleged smuggling of gold by Accused No. 1, with the involvement of Accused Nos. 2 and 4. The original complaint was challenged in a writ petition, leading to the quashing of the process against the accused. Subsequently, a fresh complaint was filed, resulting in the discharge application under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Accused Nos. 2 and 4, citing lack of prima facie evidence against them. The Judicial Magistrate First Class discharged the accused, prompting the current revision application. The main contention raised by the Complainant was that the evidence, including the statement of Accused No. 1 and other materials, was sufficient to frame charges against Accused Nos. 2 and 4. However, the court noted that the previous decision highlighted the limitations of relying solely on a co-accused's statement for prosecution, citing relevant legal precedents. The court emphasized that mere suspicion cannot replace concrete proof in criminal proceedings. It was established that the complicity of Accused Nos. 2 and 4 was primarily linked to the statement of Accused No. 1, and other circumstantial evidence did not provide substantial grounds for prosecution independent of the co-accused's statement. The judgment reiterated the legal principle that a confession statement by one accused against co-accused, when tried jointly, cannot be the sole basis for prosecution. Such statements are admissible only in conjunction with other evidence and cannot form the foundation for conviction or launching a prosecution. The court upheld the Magistrate's decision to discharge Accused Nos. 2 and 4 under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as there was no fresh material to support issuing process or framing charges against them independently of Accused No. 1's statement. Consequently, the revision application was dismissed, confirming the discharge of the accused and vacating the stay on further proceedings.
|
