dealt with in the aforesaid citations. There is no quarrel to the position of law regarding the evidentiary value of a confessional statement of a co-accused as envisaged in Section 30 of the Evidence Act which has been elaborately discussed in the judgments cited by the learned ASC. As to the present case, either on a statement of a witness or confessional statement of a co-accused, the petitioner has been implicated. It is admitted by learned ASC Mr. Das that the seizure of diesel relates to Khuntuni P.S. Case No.147 of 2014. After the alleged seizure in the said case and considering the evidence whatever received therein, the involvement of the petitioner has been shown. The Court is completely in dark with regard to the nature of evidence based upon which the petitioner was involved except the fact that there has been a confessional statement besides seizure of diesel in Khuntuni P.S. Case No.147 of 2014. The aforesaid aspects of the case which are fact based are required to be examined afresh considering the claim of the petitioner. But the law is well settled that even a slightest doubt suggesting the complicity of an accused is sufficient to take cognizance of the offence he has committed and also for the purpose of framing charge. Having said that, the Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case where the matter should be remitted back to the court below for examination of all the materials for the limited purpose of taking cognizance of the offence vis-à-vis the petitioner which would perhaps serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.
