On 19. 1. 1989 rev. Father s. Peter,head master of st. Mary s high school, karaikkal received an anaonymous letter threatening him that on 20. 11. 1989 there would be a bomb blast in the high school premises. On this a complaint was registered by the police, on the same day for the offence under sec. 506, part ii, i. P. C. Against somanathan the first accused, since the handwriting in the letter was found to be identical with that of his. During the course of investigation the headmaster as well as two teachers of the high school and two other persons were examined and their statements were recorded. Some eight months later, on 14. 10. 1989 the said somanathan was arrested and he gave a confession statement that he wrote the said anonymous letter at the instigation of the present petitioner mr. Prakasam. Thereupon, on 18. 10. 1989 the respondent - inspector of police, karaikkal filed a charge sheet in c. C. No. 3 of 1990 before judicial first class magistrate, karaikkal alleging that on 19. 1. 1989 both the accused in furtherance of their common intention criminally intimidated the headmaster with death and destruction of property by bomb threat through an anonymous letter and thereby they have committed an offence punishable under sec. 506, part ii, i. P. C. In this petition second accused prakasam seeks to quash the charge against him stating that he has been falsely implicated on account of his challenging the acts of the management through writ petitions in the high court.
2. Thiru karpagavinayagam, learned counsel for the quash petitioner submits that the materials collected by the investigating agency who filed the charge sheet do not reveal any offence against the petitioner. All the five witnesses do not refer anything about the petitioner. The alleged confession given by the said somanathan does not lead to any recovery and as such the confession statement is inadmissible in law. As such, the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner without any legal evidence and so the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
3. That the confession of somanathan implicating the present petitioner is the only evidence available against him is not disputed. In janakiraman v. State, (1991) 2 m. W. N. (crl.) 26, a single judge of this court has held that where the whole case of the prosecution stands on the confession without discovery it is hit by sec. 25 of the evidence act, which cannot be proved. The continuance of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly the charge sheets as well as f. I. R. Were quashed. It is true that under sec. 30 of the evidence act when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. But, there should be substantive evidence before the confession of a co - accused can be used to set at rest any doubt. Conviction based on confession of co - accused alone is illegal. Such confession can be used only for lending reassurance of other substantive evidence. The statement given by an accused involving himself in the crime and also implicating third person cannot be proved legally in the court. It will be conflicting with secs. 25 and 26 of the indian evidence act. If such evidence or conferring cannot be proved, then the occasion for utilising that statement against another person does not arise. The result is that reliance of such statement against another person while framing charge does not arise. In the absence of any such substantive evidence it is seen that there is practically no material against the present petitioner to be proceeded against.
4. In r. P. Kapur v. State of punjab, a. I. R. 1960 s. C. 866, the supreme court has held that where the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge, the inherent power of the high court can be exercised to quash proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of any court. On the ratio laid down in the decisions referred to above, it is evident that the proceedings herein against the petitioner are to be quashed.
5. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in c. C. No. 3 of 1990 on the file of judicial first class magistrate, karaikkal as against the petitioner are hereby quashed.