MEHBOOBALI &ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

                       [2015] 10 S.C.R. 553


                   '
                  MEHBOOBALI &ANR.                            A
                                v.
                 STATE OF RAJASTHAN
             (Criminal Appeal No.808 of 2010)
                       OCTOBER27, 2015                        B

       [H.L. DATTU, CJI AND ARUN MISHRA, J.]
     Evidence Act, 1872: s. 27 - Statement of accused leading
to identification and arrest of other accused persons and C
recovery of fake currency notes which information not known
to police - Admissibility of his statement - Held: The
statement of accused led to the discovery of fact proving
complicity of other accused persons and the entire chain of
circumstances clearly made out that co-accused acted in
                                                               0
conspiracy - These facts were not in the knowledge of the
Police hence the statement of the accused leading to
discovery of fact was clearly admissible as per the provisions
contained in s. 27 of the Act which carves out an exception to
the general provisions about inadmissibility of confession E
made under police custody contained in ss. 25 and 26 of the
Act - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 4898, 489C.

    Dismissing the appeals, the Court

    HELD: 1. Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides F
that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be
proved as against a person accused of any offence.
Section 26 provides that no confession made by any
person while he is in the custody of a police officer,
unless it be made in the immediate presence of a G
Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
Section 27 is in the form of a proviso, it lays down how
much of an information received from accused may be
                               553                            H
554         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A proved. For application of section 27 of Evidence Act,
  admissible portion of confessional statement h~s to be
  found as to a fact which were the immediate cause of
  the discovery, only that would be part of legal evidence
  and not the rest. In a statement if something new is
B discovered or recovered from the accused which was
  not in the knowledge of the Police before disclosure
  statement of the accused is recorded, is admissible in
  the evidence. [Paras 12 and 13] [561-C-F]

C          2. It is apparent that on the basis of the information
      furnished by accused 'M' and 'F', the other accused, 'A'
      was arrested. The fact that 'A' was dealing with forged
      currency notes was not to the knowledge ofthe Police.
      Accused 'M' and 'F' identified 'A' and ultimately
D     statements led to unearthing the racket of use of fake
      currency notes. Thus, the information furnished by
      accused 'M' and 'F' was clearly admissible which led to
      the identification and arrest of accused 'A' and from
      possession of 'A' fake currency notes had been
E     recovered. As per information furnished by accused 'M'
      and 'F' vide memos P41 and P42, the fact has been
      discovered by Police as to the involvement of accused
      'A' which was not to the knowledge of the Police. Thus
F     the statement of accused 'M' and 'F' is clearly saved by
      section 27 of the Evidence Act. The embargo put by
      section 27 of the Evidence Act was clearly lifted !n the
      instant case. The statement of the accused persons has
      led to the discovery of fact proving complicity of other
G     accused persons and the entire chain of circumstances
      clearly makes out that accused acted in conspiracy as
      found by the trial court as well as the High Court. It is
      apparent that there was discovery of a fact as per the
      statement of 'M' and 'F'. Co-accu~ed was nabbed on the
H     basis of identification made by them. He was dealing with
    MEHBOOBALI &ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN               555


fake currency notes came to the knowledge of police A
through them. Recovery of forged currency notes was
also made from 'A'. Thus the said accused had the
knowledge about co-accused 'A' who was nabbed at their
instance and on the basis of their identification. These
facts were not to the knowledge ofthe Police hence the B
statements of the accused persons leading to discovery
of fact are clearly admissible as per the provisions
contained in section 27 of the Evidence Act which carves
out an exception to the general provisions about
inadmissibility of confession made under police custody C
contained in sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
[Paras 15, 20] [562-E-H; 563-A-C; 567-G-H; 568-A-C]

     State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan
     Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600: 2005 (2) Suppl.-SCR          D
     79; Pulukuri Kottaya & Ors. v. Emperor AIR 1947
     PC 67; State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath
     Shinde & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1691: 2000 (3) SCR
   · 880; Ismail v. Emperor AIR 1946 Sind 43;
     Subedar& Ors. v. King-Emperor AIR 1924All. 207       E
    - relied on.

                   Case Law Reference

  2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 79         relied on.    Para 16    F
  AIR 1947 PC 67                 relied on.    Para 16

  2000 (3) SCR 880               relied on.    Para 17

  AIR 1946 Sind 43               relied on.    Para 18    G
  AIR 1924 All. 207              relied on.    Para 19

   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL
APPEAL No. 808 of 2010.
                                                          H
556         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 1OS.C.R.


A         From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2009 of the
      High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jaipur in S. B. Crl.
      Appeal No. 39 of 2006.

                                  WITH
 B
          Crl.A. No. 1088 of2010.

           Shekhar Naphade, Sanjay R. Hegde,Arunabh Chowdhury,
      Gainilung Panmei, Anupam Lal Das, R. K. Kapoor, Rekha Giri,
      (for Anis Ahmed Khan) for the .t\ppellants.
 c
         Jayant Bhatt, P. L., B. Shravant Shanker, Ajay Choudhary,
      Puneet Parihar, {for Ruchi Kohli), Milind Kumar for the
      Respondents.

 o        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The appeals have been preferred
   against the common judgment and order dated 28.5.2009
   passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur
 E Bench in Criminal Appeal Nos.39/2006 and 40/2006 and other
   connected matters, thereby upholding conviction and sentence
   of the appellants for commission of offence under section
   489C for 3 years' RI, for section 489B read with section 120B
   IPC of IPC five years' RI and fine of Rs.1000/- each; in default
 F to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. Appellants
   Mehboob Ali and Firoz were convicted and sentenced under
   section 489B read with section 120B IPC for 5 years' RI and
   fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default to suffer one month simple
   imprisonment. Other accused persons LiyakatAli and Puran
 G Mal were also convicted.

          2. As per the prosecution case, on 6.1.2004 FIR No.459
      of 2003 was registered at Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur in
      State of Rajasthan. From possession of accused Puran Mal,
 H    5 currency notes of Rs.100 denomination were found. Three
    MEHBOOBALI &ANR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                         557
              [ARUN MISHRA. J.]

currency notes were of the same number. Remainlng two A
currency notes also bore the same number which were
apparently forged. He was arrested vide Me.mo ?-6 and
recovery memo P-7 was drawn. Case under section 489C
read with section 1208 IPC was registered. On interrogation
Puran Mal informed that he had received the currency notes B
from Mehboob, Firoz and Ram Gopal. Mehboob and Firoz
were arrested on information furnished by accused Puran Mal. ·
From Ram Gopal's house currency notes worth Rs.41,900/-
were recovered from the possession of Puran Mal. Mehboob
and Firoz informed the Police that they have obtained the C
currency notes from An ju Ali, and they would identify Anju Ali.
They were taken to Delhi. On identification made by them Anju
Ali was arrested and fake currency notes of the value of
Rs.1,75,000/-were recovered from his possession. AnjuAli in
                                                                 0
turn informed that he used to receive the currency notes from
accused Majhar. On the information and identification of Anju
Ali, Majharwas arrested and on his search, fake currency notes
of the value of Rs.48,220/- were recovered. Majhar in turn
informed that he used to receive fake currency notes from E
LiyakatAli. LiyakatAli was arrested and from his possession
currency notes of the value of Rs.2,39,500/-were recovered.
Some semi-made currency notes of Rs.500 denomination and
equipments for fabricating notes were also recovered from
his possession and on the basis of the information furnished F
by him, additional forged currency notes of the value of Rs.2
lakhs were recovered from his lndica car.

    3. The fake currency notes have been recovered from the
possession of Pu ran Mal, An ju Ali, Majhar and LiyakatAli. The    G
recovered currency notes were sent to Indian Security Press,
Nasik. Shyam Singh, PW-16, Manager of RBI stated thatthe
seized currency notes were counterfeit. Report P-34 was
submitted. The evidence with respect to how material was
deposited in the store house had also been adduced by the          H
'   558         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 10S.C.R.


    A prosecution. Reports sent by Security Press are exhibits P-
      46, P-47, P-48 and P-51. Raghuveer Singh, SHO, identified
      the articles recovered from Pu ran Mal, Anju Ali, Majhar etc.

                4. Accused Mehboob was arrested vide memo P4. He
     B    submitted information vide Memo Ex. P41. Accused Firoz
          submitted information vide Memo Ex. P42 under section 27
          of the Evidence Act. Both of them informed that forged currency
          notes were supplied to them by Usman Bhai and Anju Ali
          residents of Delhi, and they would identify them. The information
    C     was recorded by Raghuveer Singh, 10. He had taken the
          accused Mehboob and Firoz to Delhi. There both of them
          identified one Maruti car DL-3C-V-2927 in Street No.13,
          Seelampur, Delhi. They also identified the person who was
          sitting in the car as Anju Ali for which memo Ex. P16 was
    D     prepared and signatures of two witnesses Mukesh Yadav-
          PW13 and Vi nod Sharma-PW11 were also obtained.
          Mahaveer PW24 accompanied RaghuveerSingh, 10. Vined
          Sharma, PW11 though turned hostile, admitted his signatures
          on memo Ex. P16 and also supported the factum of visiting
     E    Delhi along with Police. He drove Vehicle No. RJ-14 7C 4668
          and took the policemen from Jaipur to Delhi. Mukesh Yadav
          PW13 also supported that he had taken the Police to Delhi by
          his Qualis No.RJ14T-5649. Identification ofAnjuAli by Mehboob
     F    Ali and Firoz was also supported. On arrest of Anju Ali vide
          memo P13 and on search from his right side pocket of Pant,
          350 forged currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500
          totalling Rs.1, 75,000/-were recovered which were also found
          to be forged.
     G     5. Accused Anju Ali had furnished information memo P43
       dated 7 .1.2004 that he had obtained the currency notes in the
       denomination of Rs.500 from Majhar and he would identify
       Majhar. On the basis of his information on being identified by
     H Anju Ali, Majhar was arrested on 9.1.2004 at 8.15 p.m. when
       he was standing near ISBT, where Metro Railway was under
    MEHBOOBALI &ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                   559
              [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

construction. Both PW11 and PW13 have confirmed their A
signatures on the memos. Majharwas arrested vide Memo P-
31. On search of Majhar currency notes of the denominations
of Rs.500, Rs.100 and Rs.20 were recovered vide memo P19
from the small bag kept by him in the socks of his left foot.
Besides, Vined Sharma PW11, Mukesh Yadav PW13 and B
Mahaveer Singh PW24 have also supported the factum of
recovery and furnishing of information. Currency notes worth
Rs.48,220 were recovered from Majhar.

     6. The prosecution examined in all 28 witnesses and 53 C
documents were exhibited. In defence 3 witnesses were
examined. The trial court as well as the High Court have
convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid, hence
the appeals.                                            ·
                                                                D
     7. It was submitted on beha°lf of the appellants Mehboob
Ali and Mohd. Firoz that the confessional statement of accused
persons recorded under section 27 of Evidence Act is not
admissible as the accused persons were under the custody
of Police. No recovery has been made from accused Mehboob E
Ali and Mohd. Firoz. As such their conviction is illegal and is
liable to be set aside. On behalf of the accused Anju Ali and
Majhar it has been submitted that recovery from them has not
been proved and their conviction is bad in law.
                                                               F
     8 With respect to the appeal of An ju Ali and Majhar, it is
apparent thatAnju Ali was arrested on the basis of information
furnished by Mehboob and Firoz vide memos Ex. P41 and
P42 and he was identified by the aforesaid accused persons
while he was in Maruti car in Street No.13, Seelampur, Delhi. G
Vi nod PW-11 and Mukesh Yadav PW13 have signed the memo
P16. The fact is also supported by Mahaveer Singh PW24.
Though Vinod turned hostile but he has admitted his signatures
on memo P16 and has supported the factum of visiting Delhi
along with Police. Mukesh Yadav, PW-13, has also supported H
560         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 10S.C.R.


A     that he had taken the Police to Delhi and Mehboob and Firoz
      have pointed out that Anju Ali was in the car on the basis of
      that he was arrested vide memo P3Q. On search of Anju Ali,
      350 forged currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500 worth
      Rs.1, 75,000/-were seized vide recovery memo P-26.
 B
       9. With respect to accused Majhar, information P43 was
  furnished by accused Anju Ali. Anju Ali identified Majhar while
  he was standing near ISBT. Mukesh PW-13 has proved memo
  P43. Vinod PW11, has also admitted his signatures on P-31.
C Vide recovery memo P19, currency notes in the denominations
  of Rs.500, Rs.100 and Rs.20 aggregating to Rs.48,220/-were
  recovered from Majhar. They have been proved to be fake on
  the basis of the aforesaid reports submitted by the Indian
  Security Press, Nasik Road. All the currency notes were found
D to be forged. Shyam Singh, Manager, PW16, has proved the
  sending of the currency notes to Indian Security Press. The
  currency notes have been proved to be forged and correctness
  of reports in this regard has not been questioned in the appeals.

 E         10. In the appeal preferred by Mehboob Ali and Firoz, it
      was submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on their
      behalf that the confessional statement of the accused recorded
      under section 27 of Evidence Act was not admissible as there
      is no recovery of the currency notes from their possession.
 F    The confession made under the Police custody was
      inadmissible thus, there was no evidence to convict the
      appellants Mehboob and Mohd. Firoz.

       11. It is apparent from the facts of the case that initially
G accused Puran Mal was arrested and from his possession
  forged currency notes were recovered. On the basis of
  information furnished by him that the currency notes were
  handed over to him by accused Mehboob and Firoz, they, in
  turn, have unfolded the entire sequence leading to arrest of
H accused AnjuAli. AnjuAli was arrested on being identified by
    MEHBOOBALI &A1'IR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                          561
              [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Mehboob Ali and Firoz when they were taken from Jaipur to A
Delhi and the recovery of forged currency notes was made ·
from Anju Ali. Anju Ali identified yet another co-accused Majhar
from whose possession also fake currency notes were
recovered and information supplied by Majhar ultimately led
to arrest of Liyakat Ali from whose possession also forged • B
currency notes and semi-printed currency notes were
recovered along with instrument of printing fake currency notes.

     12. Section 25 of the Evidence Act provides that no
confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved as against C
a person accused of any offence. Section 26 provides that no
confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a
police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of
a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Section
27 is in the form of a proviso, it lays down how much of an D
information received from accused may be proved.

     13. For application of section 27 of Evidence Act,
admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found
as to a fact which were the immediate cause of the discovery,           E
only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In a
statement if something new is discovered or recovered from
the accused which was not in the knowledge of the Police
before disclosure statement of the accused is recorded, is
admissible in the evidence.                                             F

     14. Section 27 of Evidence Act refers when any "fact" is
deposed. Fact has been defined in section 3 of the Act. Same
is quoted below:
                                                                       G
     "Fact" means and includes-

     (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable
     of being by the senses;

      (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious.        H
562        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 1OS.C.R.


A         Illustrations:
          (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain
          order in,a certain place, is a fact.
          (b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.
 8
          (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.

           (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain
           intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a
 C       . particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a
           specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a
           fact.

          (e) That a man has a certain reputation, is fact. a
 o        "Relevant". -One fact is said to be relevant to another
          when the one is connected with the other in any of the
          ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to
          the relevancy offacts."

 E      15. It is apparent that on the basis of the information
   furnished by accused MehboobAli and Firoz other accused,
   Anju Ali was arrested. The fact thatAnju Ali was dealing with·
   forged currency notes. was not to the knowledge of the Police.
   The statement of both accused has led to discovery of fact
 F and arrest of co-accused not known to police. They identified
   him and ultimately statements have led to unearthing the racket
   of use of fake currency notes. Thus the information furnished
   by the aforesaid accused persons vide information memos is
   clearly admissible which has led to the identification and arrest
 G of accused Anju Ali and as already stated from possession of
   Anju Ali fake currency notes had been recovered. As per
   information furnished by accused Mehboob and Firoz vide
   memos P41 and P42, the fact has been discovered by Police
   as to the involvement of accused Anju Ali which was not to the
 H knowledge of the Police. Police was not aware of accused
    MEHBOOBALI &ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                      563
              [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Anju Ali as well as the fact that he was dealing with fake currency A
notes which were recovered from him. Thus the statement of
the aforesaid accused Mehboob and Firoz is clearly saved by
section 27 of the Evidence Act. The embargo put by section
27 of the Evidence Act was clearly lifted in the instant case.
The statement of the accused persons has led to the discovery B
of fact proving complicity of other accused persons and the
entire chain of circ_umstances clearly makes out that accused
acted in conspiracy as found by the trial court as well as the
High Court.
                                                                   c
    16. This Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu
alias Afsan Guru [(2005) 11SCC600] has considered the
question of discovery of a fact referred to in section 27. This
Court has considered plethora.of decisions and·explained the
decision in Pu/ukuri Kottaya & Ors. \I. Emperor[AIR 1947 D
PC 67] and held thus :

     "125. We are of the view that Kottaya case [AIR 1947
     PC 67] is an authority for the proposition that "discovery
     of fact" cannot be equated to the object produced or E
     found .. lt is more than that. The discovery of fact arises by
     reason of the fact that the information given by the
     accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental
     awareness of the informant as to its existence at a
     particular place.                                              F

     126. We now turn our attention to the precedents of this
     Court which followed the track of Kottaya case. The ratio
     of the decision in Kottaya case reflected in the underlined
     passage extracted supra was highlighted in several G
     decisions of this Court.

     127. The crux of the ratio in Kottaya case was explained
     by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Damu. Thomas
     J. observed that: (SCC p. 283, para 35)                  H
564       SURREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 1OS.C.R.


A        "The decision of the Privy Council in Pu/ukuri Kottaya v.
         Emperor (supra) is the most quoted authority for
         supporting the interpretation that the 'fact discovered'
         envisaged in the section embraces the place from which
         the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused
 B       as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to
         that effect."
         In Mohd. lnayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [1976 1
         SCC 828], Sarkaria, J. while clarifying that the expression
C        "fact discovered" in Section 27 is not restricted to a
         physical or material fact which can be perceived by the
         senses, and that it does include a mental fact, explained
         the meaning by giving the gist of what was laid down in
         Pu/ukuri Kottaya case (supra). The learned Judge,
D        speaking for the Bench observed thus: (SCC p. 832,
         para 13)

         "Now it is fairly settled that the expression 'fact
         discovered' includes not only the physical object
 E       produced, but also the place from which it is produced
         and the knowledge of the accused as to this (see Pu/ukuri
         Kottaya v. Emperor (supra); Udai Bhan v. State of U.P.
         [1962 Supp (2) SCR 830])."
 F     17. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde &
  Ors. [AIR 2000 SC 1691] the statement made by the accused
  that the dead body of the child was carried up to a particular
  spot and a broken glass piece recovered from the spotwas
  found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of co-accused
G alleged to be used for the said purpose. The statement leading
  to the discovery of a fact that accused had carried dead body
  by a particular motorcycle up to the said spot would be
  admissible in evidence. This Court has laid down thus:

H        "36. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the
MEHBOOBALI &ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                          565
          [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by                  A
subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the
principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made
on the strength of any information obtained from a
prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the
information supplied by the prisoner is true. The                B
information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in
nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a
reliable information. Hence the legislature permitted such
information to be used as evidence by restricting the
admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well settled        C
that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as
envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy
Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC
67 is the most quoted authority for supporting the
                                                                 0
interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the
section embraces the place from which the object was
produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the
information given must relate distinctly to that effect.
37. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted E
in evidence is confined to that portion of the information
which "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered".
But the information to get admissibility need not be so
truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. F
The extent of information admitted should be consistent
with understandability. In this case, the fact discovered
by PW 44 is that A-3 Mukinda Thorat had carried the
dead body of Dipak to the spot on the motorcycle.

38. How did the particular information led to the discovery G
of the fact? No doubt, recovery of dead body of Dipak
from the same canal was antecedent to the information
which PW 44 obtained. If nothing more was recovered
pursuant to and subsequent to obtaining the information H
from the accused, there would not have been any
566       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A        discovery of any fact at all. But when the broken glass
         piece was recovered from that spot and that piece was
         found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle ofA-2
         Guruji, it can safely be held that the Investigating Officer
         discovered the fact thatA-2 Guruji had carried the dead
B        body on that particular motorcycle up to the spot.

         39. In view of the said discovery of the fact, we are inclined
         to hold that the information supplied by A-2 Guruji that
         the dead body of Dipak was carried on the motorcycle
C        up to the particular spot is admissible in evidence. That
         information, therefore, proves the prosecution case to
         the abovementioned extent."

       18. In Ismail v. Emperor [AIR 1946 Sind 43] it was held
D that where as a result of information given by the accused
  another co-accused was found by the police the statement by
  the accused made to the Police as to the whereabouts of the
  co-accused was held to be admissible under section 27 as
  evidence against the accused.
E
       19. In Subedar& Ors. v. King-Emperor[AIR 1924All. 207]
  it was held that a statement made by the accused implicating
  himself and others cannot be called 'first information report'.
  However it was held that though it could not be treated as first
F information report but could be used as information furnished
  under section 27 of Evidence Act. It was held thus:

         "The approver and one of the appellants were arrested
         practically red-handed. They made statements to the
G        officer who arrested them involving admissions of guilt.
         They went further and gave a list of the other members of
         the gang. Thereupon the officer made a report in writing
         to his superior, containing the information which he had
         received, including the names of those other persons
H        received from the two men arrested. Somehow or other,
    MEHBOOBALI &ANR. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN                    567
              [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

     the learned Judge has described this police report, which    A
     is merely the report of a confession, as "the first
     information report." Now the first information report is a
     well known technical description of a report under section
     154, Criminal Procedure Code, giving first information
     of a cognizable crime. This is usually made by the           B
     complainant, or by some one on his behalf. The language
     is inapplicable to a statement made by the accused. The
     novelty of a statement by an accused person being called
     the first information report was to me so strange, that
     when counsel for the appellants addressed the argument       C
     to me attacking the Judge's use of the first information
     report, I took no notice of the argument. The learned
     Judge realized that he was dealing with a confession,
     but he momentarily failed to appreciate that the document
                                                                  0
     itself was inadmissible, and that the only way in which
     the information relied upon could be used wa.:; by section
     27. That is to say, with regard to the other accused, the
     officer giving evidence might say : "I arrested them in
     consequence of information received from Narain and          E
     Thakuri. When I arrested them they made a statement to
     me which caused me to arrest these people". The use
     which can legitimately be made of such information is
     merely this, that when direct evidence is given against
     the accused at_the trial and there was evidence against      F
     the accused, it is open to the defence to check such
     evidence by asking whether the name of a particular
     accused was mentioned or not at the time .... "

     20. Considering the aforesaid dictums, it is apparent that G
there was discovery of a fact as per the statement of Mehmood
Ali and Mohd. Firoz. Co-accused was nabbed on the basis of
identification made by the accused Mehboob and Firoz. He
was dealing with fake currency notes came to the knowledge
of police through them. Recovery of forged currency notes was H
568          SUPREME COURT REPORTS\.             [2015) 10 S.C.R.


A also madefromAnjuAli. Thus the aforesaid accused had the
  knowledge about co-accused Anju Ali who was nabbed at their
  instance and on the basis of their identification. These facts
  were not to the knowledge of the Police hence the statements
  of the accused persons leading to discovery of fact are clearly
B admissible as per the provisions contained in section 27 of
  the Evidence Act which carves out an exception to the general
  provisions about inadmissibility of confession made under
  police custody contained in sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence
  Act.
c
           21. As a result, we find no merit in the appeals. The
      judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial court and
      confirmed by the High Court are found to be appropriate. Thus
      the appeals being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed.

      Devika Gujral                                Appeals dismissed.