The petitioner herein is the 9th accused in S.C No.385 of 2011 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. He made application before the trial court as C.M.P. No.2303 of 2012 for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The offences alleged against him and others are punishable under Sections 489 (B) and (C) of Indian Penal Code. His application was dismissed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge by order dated 9.12.2013. The said order is under challenge in this revision. 2. On hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, and on a perusal of the case records, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the court below. The prosecution relies on some materials against the revision petitioner including the extra-judicial confession made by him and also the confession statement given by another co- accused. Whether these confessions are admissible in Crl.R.P No.1025 of 2014 2 evidence, and if at all admissible, to what extent those confessions can be admitted, or whether a conviction is possible on the basis of these confessions alone, are all matters for decision on trial. Just because the prosecution has not produced any other material, or just because the prosecution does not rely on any material besides the extra- judicial confessions of the petitioner or the confessions made by the co-accused, the petitioner cannot seek discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The Court will have to consider all the materials including the confessions, and the trial court will have to take a decision on trial. I find that the application of the revision petitioner was rightly rejected by the court below. In such a situation, this revision is liable to be dismissed in limine.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed in limine, without being admitted to files.
ma /True copy/ Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE P.S to Judge