DIPAKBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 701 · Decided: 24-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
701
DIPAKBHAI JAGDISHCHANDRA PATEL
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 714 of 2019)
APRIL 24, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND  K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Petition filed by
appellant challenging the complaint and the order passed by
Sessions Court rejecting his prayer to discharge him of offence
under ss.489B and 489C IPC – Prosecution case was that accused
no.1 to 3 were selling fake foreign currency note as original at
public place – When they were caught,  they stated that they collected
notes from the residence of accused no.4-appellant – Appellant
contended before Sessions judge that apart from the statements of
co-accused, there was no material to proceed against him and that
only on the basis of statement of co-accused, no case could be
made out against him and that the statement made by co-accused
was barred by s.25 of Evidence Act – Sessions judge held that whole
recovery procedure was made in the presence of panchas and
rejected the plea for discharge as there was some evidence against
him – High Court held that it was premature to say anything in
respect of credibility of the statement made by the Investigating
Officer in the complaint at that stage and it could be considered
only at the trial  and that the statements of co-accused recorded by
the Investigating Officer showed prima facie involvement of the
appellant in the offence and no case was made out to interfere
under s.482 – On appeal, held:  At the stage of framing the charge,
the Court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case
is made out for the accused to stand trial – In the instant case, the
co-accused were absconding – The State did not seriously dispute
the fact that there was no recovery from the residence of the appellant
of the counterfeit notes and that there was no other material on the
basis of which even a strong suspicion could be aroused – The
mandate of the law requires to free the appellant from being
proceeded against – Therefore, order passed by the Sessions Judge
framing the charge against the appellant is liable to be set aside
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 701
701
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
702
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
and the appellant is entitled to discharge – Penal Code, 1860 –
ss.489B and 489C.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ss.161, 162 –
Inadmissibility of statement made before the Police Officer – Held:
Bar under s.162 operates in regard to the statement made to a Police
Officer in between two points of time, viz., from the beginning of
the investigation till the termination of the same – In a case where
statement containing not a confession but admission, which is
otherwise relevant and which is made before the investigation
commences, may be admissible – What amounts to an admission
can be used against the maker of the admission or his representative
in interest – As to what constitutes an admission is to be found in
s.17 of the Evidence Act – Being an admission, it may be admissible
under the Evidence Act provided that it meets the requirements of
admission as defined in s.17 of the Evidence Act – However, even if
it is an admission, if it is made in the course of investigation under
the Cr.PC to a Police Officer, then, it will not be admissible under
s.162  as it clearly prohibits the use of statement made to a Police
Officer under s.161  except for the purpose which is mentioned
therein – Statement given under s.161, even if relevant, as it contains
an admission, would not be admissible, though an admission falling
short of a confession which may be made otherwise, may become
substantive evidence – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.17.
Evidence Act, 1872: s.25 – Confession made to police officer
– Admissibility of – Held: s.25 of the Evidence Act renders
inadmissible a confession made to a Police Officer – It declares in
fact that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved as
against a person accused of any offence – When a person is named
as an accused in First Information Report, he would stand in the
shoes of an accused person – A person who stands in the shoes of
the accused being named in the First Information Report, can be
examined by the Police Officer under s.161 of the Cr.PC.– A person
who is named in the FIR, and therefore, the accused in the eyes of
law, can indeed be questioned and the statement is taken by the
Police Officer – A confession, which is made to a Police Officer,
would be inadmissible having regard to s.25 of the Evide

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.