Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.5926 of 2010 ====================================================== Rambilash Sadai, son of Late Phuleshwar Sadai, resident of Village: Phataki, Kutti Tole, Police Station: Madhepur, District: Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Kaleshwar Sadai, Son of Late Sukal Sadai, resident of Village: Phataki Kutti, Tole, P.S: Madhepur, District: Madhubani .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 28-06-2012 Heard Sri Prafull Chandra Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hriday Prasad Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. The present petition has been filed against an order dated 06.10.2009 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, in Madhepur P.S. Case No. 79 of 2009/ G.R.No. 599 of 2009. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and only on suspicion, he was made accused. He submits that during the course of investigation, one of the accused made confessional statement that too before the police, in which, he has disclosed the involvement of the petitioner and on this ground, he has been Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5926 of 2010 (4) dt.28-06-2012 2 / 2 2 made accused. Sri Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a School Teacher and Incharge Head Master and he has further taken a plea of alibi. By order dated 07.10.2010, Case Diary was called for from the court below, which is on record. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor informs the Court that there is material against the petitioner, particularly, confession of co-accused. The point weather the confession made by co- accused is admissible or not, may not be examined by this Court while hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. that too against an order of cognizance These are questions, which are required to be looked into by the court below during the trial. Be that as it may, fact remains that at least there is some material indicating the involvement of the petitioner and as such, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the order of cognizance. The petition stands dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below forthwith. Anay/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 201

Statute Text:
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information touching it to screen the offender, If a capital offence. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence — shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years imprisonment — and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.