In MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO.52538 of 2021-MP HC- Information given by co-accused is inadmissible if same does not lead to any recovery: Madhya Pradesh HC Justice Virender Singh [23-05-2022]

Read Order: ARJIND  KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 

Mansimran Kaur

Gwalior, June 3, 2022: Allowing the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered against him on account of lack of evidence, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has opined that the information given or disclosure made by the accused, which does not lead to any recovery is not admissible in evidence against other co-accused persons and on the basis of such inadmissible evidence the prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law.

Referring to the judgments in Harichara Kurmi and Jogia Hajam , Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan, State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari, Mustkeem Vs. State of Rajasthan, Asar Mohammad and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. , the Single Bench of Justice Virender Singh said, “The law is now well settled that the information given by the co-accused is inadmissible if the same does not lead to any recovery.”

As per the case of the prosecution, it received information that two trucks were carrying illegal liquor.  On search, 800 boxes of IMFL (Royal Select Delux Whiskey) were found in on truck, while 833 boxes of the same IMFL were found in another truck. In both the trucks, documents for transporting the whiskey showing their transportation to Arunachal Pradesh and Chandigarh from Narmada Distilleries, Itma Kothar, Amarpatan, Satna were found and permits were also recovered. On further inquiry the involvement of the managerial staff of Narmada Distilleries, namely, A.K.Singh, Nanak Singh, Sanjeev Dodi, Gurubaksh Singh and Sanjeev Agrawal came to surface, who prepared fake counterfoils and sent them to one Chanchal Tiwari,  and then he along  with ADEO Mr.  Jagdish Gupta prepared those fake counter foils and sent them to the transporter to prepare a bilty to transport the seized liquor, the prosecution affirmed. 

The police also suspected that the accused persons were repeatedly transporting the liquor by using the same permit, thus the offence was registered and a charge-sheet was filed in 2015 against 18 accused persons and the trial against them was lying pending. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner filed the petition on the ground that his name was not there in the FIR and he was not present at the spot. He claimed that he was not even associated with the companies stated above. Thus, he prayed for quashing of the FIR as he was facing prosecution for the last 7 seven years, and even the Trial Court could not frame any charges against him.

The Court observed that though the powers under Section 482 are extraordinary in nature and have to be used sparingly and cautiously. However, coming back to the facts of the present case, the Court noted that there was no evidence presented against the petitioner be it either the ocular or the documentary evidence, except the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons given before the police, to show his association with the Distilleries from where the liquor allegedly got loaded or to show his involvement in any manner, what-so-ever in creation or fabrication of the fake or forged documents, the Court remarked. 

Reliance was placed on  a plethora of cases explaining the use of the inherent power enshrined under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.  The cases were namely State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Paramjeet Batra Vs State of Uttarakhand and others ,Krishnanan Vs. Krishnaveni and  Mohan Goswami And Another Vs State of Uttaranchal and others.

In view of the same, the Court also submitted that in the instant case though it was satisfied that not exercising the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would indeed cause injustice. Hence, the FIR and proceedings emerging from it against the petitioner were set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the petition was allowed.