9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the charge framed against the petitioner, a Preventive Officer in the Customs department, should be quashed. 2. Whether the confession of a co-accused can be the sole basis for framing a charge against the accused. 3. Whether the confessional statements of co-accused can be considered as substantive evidence for framing charges. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a Preventive Officer, sought to quash the charge framed against him in a case involving a criminal conspiracy related to the unlawful importation of wristwatches. The charge was based on confessional statements of co-accused individuals. The petitioner argued that the witnesses did not provide any evidence implicating him under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The State and Customs Department contended that Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act allows the court to consider confessions of co-accused for framing charges. However, the court held that the confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence and should only be considered as supporting evidence after evaluating other evidence presented. 2. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision which clarified that the confession of a co-accused should not be the starting point in a case. The court emphasized that the confession of a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for framing a charge. In this case, the charge against the petitioner was primarily based on the confessional statements of co-accused individuals. The court concluded that the Magistrate erred in framing the charge solely on the basis of these confessions without considering other reliable evidence. 3. The judgment also addressed the cases of two other Preventive Officers who were charged based on similar confessional statements of co-accused individuals. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to implicate these officers in the alleged conspiracy. The confessional statements of the co-accused were deemed insufficient to support the charges against them. Similarly, in another case involving a different accused, the court found that there was no substantial evidence to link the accused to the offense charged. The court emphasized that the evidence presented did not warrant the conviction of the accused and, therefore, the charges were quashed. In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the charges framed by the Magistrate based solely on the confessional statements of co-accused individuals. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering all evidence before framing charges and emphasized that confessions of co-accused should not be the primary basis for prosecution.
|
