High Court’s Decision on Summoning Witnesses as Accused in Corruption Case
The case involves allegations of corruption against senior officers of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation. An FIR was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and Economic Offences Wing under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The chargesheet was filed against 16 individuals, but three persons—Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv, and Jeet Ram Yadav—were cited as witnesses instead of being named as accused.
The High Court, however, directed the summoning of these three individuals as accused, reasoning that the procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C. had not been followed. The accused challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Arguments Presented
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners, represented by senior counsel Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, argued that:
- The trial court had declined to take cognizance against the three individuals, and therefore, the High Court’s interference was unjustified.
- The prosecution’s decision to cite these individuals as witnesses was made in the interest of securing convictions against the primary accused, who faced more serious charges.
- The self-incriminating statements made by these individuals under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. could not be used against them.
- Section 306 Cr.P.C., which allows an accused to be converted into a witness through a grant of pardon, was not the only procedure available for using an accomplice’s testimony.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents contended that:
- The decision of the prosecutor not to include a person as an accused was not final and could be reviewed by the court.
- If there was incriminating material against these individuals, they should be treated as accused and not witnesses.
- The High Court had the authority to take cognizance of the matter.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioners’ arguments, stating:
“The decision of the High Court has not been arrived at by weighing the interest of justice in having the appellants as accused instead of their utility as witnesses.”
The Court observed that the High Court erred in assuming that the procedure under Section 306 Cr.P.C. was the only available means to cite an accomplice as a witness. The Court also emphasized that the prosecution’s strategy of citing these individuals as witnesses to strengthen its case against the primary accused should have been considered.
Judgment and Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to:
- Reevaluate whether the three individuals should be summoned as accused.
- Exclude their statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. from consideration.
- Factor in the trial’s progress, as charges had already been framed and four witnesses had been examined.
The Court also instructed the High Court to expedite the proceedings, given that the accused had been in custody for over two years. The trial was to proceed based on the High Court’s fresh decision.
Ultimately, the case highlights the importance of prosecutorial discretion in deciding whom to cite as witnesses and the role of the judiciary in ensuring a fair trial.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Girish Sharma & Ors. vs The State of Chhatti Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 23-08-2017.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Money Laundering Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Adarsh Kumar Goel
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
