9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application of Section 306 of the Cr. P.C. in a case involving immunity under Section 291 of the I.T. Act. 2. Examination of an accused as a witness for the prosecution. 3. Provision of copies of proceedings to the accused before examination of a witness. 4. Constitutionality of Section 291 of the I.T. Act under Article 14. Analysis: 1. The judgment dealt with the issue of whether Section 306 of the Cr. P.C. could be applied in a case where immunity from prosecution was granted under Section 291 of the I.T. Act. The court held that the provisions of Section 306, Cr. P.C., do not apply in the case of a person to whom immunity under Section 291 of the I.T. Act was given. The power to tender pardon under Section 306 and the power to tender immunity from prosecution under Section 291 are to be exercised by different authorities, and thus, the request to proceed under Section 306 was rightly denied by the Special Judge. 2. Another issue addressed was the examination of an accused as a witness for the prosecution. The court noted that while a previous case had disallowed the prosecution from examining an accused as a witness without recourse to Section 306, Cr. P.C., in this case, the accused had been granted immunity under Section 291 of the I.T. Act. The court directed that before the accused could be examined as a prosecution witness, the prosecution must make available the statement leading to the immunity for inspection by the accused and their counsel to enable effective cross-examination. 3. The judgment also discussed the provision of copies of proceedings to the accused before the examination of a witness. It was emphasized that Section 291 of the I.T. Act does not provide for the grant of copies of proceedings leading to immunity from prosecution. However, the court directed the complainant to allow inspection of the statement of the witness to the accused and their counsel a day before the witness is examined to prevent prejudice and ensure a fair trial. 4. Lastly, the constitutionality of Section 291 of the I.T. Act under Article 14 was challenged. The court rejected the argument that Section 291 violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It was held that the Central Government has the discretion to choose one of the accused to testify based on the need for evidence, and the section was not found to be arbitrary or discriminatory. The court upheld the validity of Section 291 of the I.T. Act in this regard. In conclusion, the revision was partly allowed to direct the complainant to provide the statement of the witness for inspection before examination, while dismissing the revision on other grounds.
|
