In CRR 195 of 2018-CAL HC- Under Sec.30 of Evidence Act, confession of accused is relevant and admissible against co-accused if both are jointly facing trial for same offence: Calcutta HC
 Justice Subhendu Samanta [02-01-2023]

Read Order: ABDUL HALIM SARDAR & ANR V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR 

Mansimran Kaur

Kolkata, January 3, 2023: In a case where petitioners and the accused were facing the charge of the same case, the Calcutta High Court has opined that the confessional statement made by the co-accused had its value in the eye of law. 

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed the  present  application which  was instituted  under Section 482 of read with 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings in connection with a case  under Section 420/406/381/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the  Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The Bench was of the view that after considering the materials on record and after considering the case diary, it appeared that there were sufficient materials for proceeding against the present petitioners. 

The brief facts of the case were  that on the basis of a written complaint of one Rohit Chowdhury, Director of T.C. Motors Private Limited Domjur, a case was initiated against one Surajit Bej. The statement of the complaint in a nutshell was that Surajit Bej was  one of the employees of the Company in the post of Insurance incharge, he had fraudulently syphoned off a sum of Rs 25,00,000 and mis-appropriated the said amount from the period of March 2016 till the date of complaint. 

It was further  alleged in the complaint that Surajit Bej was entrusted by the company to collect premium amounts from the customers for the company and deposit the same either to the Insurance Company or to the complainant company. He collected the premium amount from different customers and dishonestly mis-appropriated the funds for personal use without being deposited either to the Insurance Company or the complainant company.

During the course of investigation the accused Surajit Bej was arrested and during his police remand he made a confessional statement that he has committed the crime in conspiracy with the present petitioners.  After conclusion of investigation the charge-sheet had been submitted against the Surajit Bej and the present petitioners showing the petitioners to be absconder.

After considering the submissions, the Bench said, “Thus, under Section 30 of the evidence Act 1872, a confession of an accused is relevant and admissible against a co-accused if both are jointly facing trial for the same offence.”

In this present case, petitioners and the accused Surajit Bej were facing the charge of the same case. So, the confessional statement made by the Surajit Bej had its value in the eye of law, the Court noted. 

Hence, after considering the materials on record and after considering the case diary, it appeared that there were sufficient materials for proceeding against the present petitioners. The Bench also opined that the criminal proceeding pending against the present petitioners was not at all improper or liable to be quashed.

Thus, the Court failed to find any merit to entertain the instant criminal revisional application and dismissed the same.