1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH Crl.O.P(MD)No.807 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Vijayaraj ...Petitioner Vs. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ...Respondent Prayer: This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.224 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil and quash the same. For Petitioner : M/s. K.P.Narayana Kumar For Respondent : Mrs.S.Devasena Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner/A7 seeking to quash the proceedings taken on file in C.C.No.224 of 2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil as not maintainable against him. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that a case was registered in Crime No.255 of 2006 on the file of respondent police for the offences under Sections 6 and 7 of Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rules 1939 r/w. 4(1) (aaa) of TNP Act and Section 57 of Tamil Nadu Excise Act and subsequently, on investigation, the petitioner, who was working as DTP operator at Thiruvattar police station at Kanyakumari District was implicated as one of the accused on the official rivalry with some higher ups without any basis and he was also arrested on 25.01.2010 and thereafter released on bail. He would further submit in his argument that even though his name was not found in the F.I.R., he has been implicated in the charge sheet based upon a confession statement given by a co-accused against the petitioner. Therefore, he would request the Court that the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner without any evidence in order to retrench the petitioner from the service. He would also submit that such a charge sheet without any evidence, but based upon the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 confession statement of a co-accused will not be sustained in trial and therefore, the charge sheet filed against the petitioner may be quashed. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit in her argument that the case was investigated and transferred to Prohibition and Enforcement Wing, Nagercoil for further investigation from Eathamozhi Police Station and the fourth accused Jose @ Merlin Jose had given a confession statement that the petitioner along with A6 Ebin @ Edwin, A8 Rabert @ Rebert, A9 Manikandan, A10 Darvin and one Bharook have confessed the course of smuggling the alcohol for the purpose of earning money. She would further submit that the said confession would implicate the petitioner/A7 in the said case along with the other accused. She would also submit that the witnesses Robin and Kumar would also speak to the effect that the petitioner had involved in hiding of rectified spirit and the recovery of motor-cycle of A4. She would further request the Court that the confession given by the co-accused would be sufficient to file a charge sheet against the petitioner and evidence could be adduced against the petitioner in the trial. Therefore, she would submit that the charge sheet cannot be quashed without undergoing trial. Therefore, she would request the Court to dismiss the petition. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. 6. The petitioner is ranked as A7 in the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.224 of 2010 taken cognizance on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil on the complaint registered in Crime No.255 of 2006. It is an admitted fact that the F.I.R. named only certain persons which do not contain the name of the petitioner. According to the respondent, the involvement of the petitioner/A7 was found out only upon the confession given by the fourth accused Robin. According to him, one Vijayan had agreed to share the money with him for smuggling rectified spirit. It is very clear that when once a confession statement has been given by a co-accused, if the said confession is leading to any recovery of material objects or any disclosure leading to recovery, the confession alone is admissible in trial. The said charge sheet is taken on file and posted for trial before the trial Court in C.C.No.224 of 2010. There is no independent evidence supporting the participation of the petitioner/A7, in support of the confession given by A4. The mere recovery of motor cycle of A4 will not validate the entire confession given by A4 but it is relevant only in respect of the fact relating to the recovery of the motorcycle. Therefore, the participation of the petitioner/A7 in the offence mentioned in the charge sheet have not been supported by any evidence. The confession regarding the involvement of A7 obtained from A4 will not sustain before the Court of law, since no other evidence has been available in the charge sheet to show the involvement of A7 in the alleged offences. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the charge sheet filed against the petitioner/A7 has no legs to stand and if trial is to be ordered for bailing out the petitioner from the charges as stated in the final report, it will be a fruitless ordeal and waste of judicial time. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner/A7 is working as a DTP operator in the Police Department and he is not at all involved in the commission of said offence. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.224 of 2010 and the proceedings taken on file against the petitioner in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 C.C.No.224 of 2010 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil is hereby quashed. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is ordered. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil. 2. The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC to Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar, Advocate, Sr.No.8901 akv Crl.O.P(MD)No.807 of 2011 14.02.2011 TR : 24.03.2011 : 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/