Summary
The Court set aside an order summoning three proposed prosecution witnesses as accused in a corruption case. An accomplice could be cited as a witness without first obtaining pardon under Section 306 CrPC, although the prosecutor’s choice did not bind the court. Fresh consideration had to balance their utility as witnesses against prosecution as accused, excluding their statements made as proposed witnesses.
Issues
- Whether pardon under Section 306 was the only means of citing an accomplice as a witness.
- What considerations governed reconsideration of the decision not to prosecute the three proposed witnesses.
Held
- The prosecution could, in the given circumstances, cite accomplices as witnesses without recourse to Section 306. The court retained final control and could interfere when the interests of justice required it. (¶ 6–7)
- The High Court erred by relying only on incriminating material without weighing the effect on the case against the more serious accused. On remand it was not to consider the three persons’ Section 161 or 164 statements made as proposed witnesses. (¶ 7–8)
- The High Court was also to consider the trial’s progress, including framing of charges and examination of four witnesses, and decide expeditiously, preferably within two weeks. (¶ 9–11)
Result
Summoning order set aside and matter remanded to the High Court. Connected appeals disposed of on the same terms; special leave petition dismissed as withdrawn and transfer petition dismissed.