Thursday, April 18, 2024
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Court is not a “post office”: Kerala HC

Kerala High Court has held that at the stage of framing the charge, the court does not act as a mere “post office”. The court must indeed sift the material before it. All that is required is that the court must be satisfied that with the materials available, a case is made out for the accused to stand trial. The High Court further observed that the Abkari Officers in State of Kerala have been invested with the powers of the police officers and confession made to an Abkari Officer is not admissible in evidence.

Acting upon a plea, a single judge bench of Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi said that after the amendment of Section 50 of the Abkari Act, Abkari Officers can only file a final report in accordance with Section 173(2) of CrPC and the status of the Abkari Officers has been transformed to that of police officers. Also, any confession made to an abkari officer after the date 03.06.1997, the date on which the amendment of the Act came into force, will be deemed to be a confession made to a police officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and shall not be admissible in law.

The petitioner herein filed a discharge application before the trial court who was accused of offences under 55(a), 55D and 64A of the Abkari Act, 1077. The petitioner pleaded that the prosecution has not produced any material to prove that the petitioner has committed the offences alleged and has been solely implicated on basis of confession of co-accused to the investigating officer.

Justice Pisharadi relying on the decision of Supreme Court in DipakBhai Jagdish Chandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2019 SC 3363 held that prima facie no material was available on record to so as to frame charge against the petitioner. He also relied on Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra: AIR 1998 SC 3258 wherein the apex court held that a confession by co-accused containing incriminating matter against a person would not by itself suffice to frame charge against him. The revision was allowed and the petitioner was discharged of the said offences.

-India Legal Bureau 

spot_img

News Update