9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 197 of 1997 in E.O.C.C. No. 341 of 1989 before the High Court. Analysis: The revision petitioner, a witness in E.O.C.C. No. 341 of 1989, raised concerns regarding his deposition affecting a separate case where he is an accused. The petitioner argued that deposing in E.O.C.C. No. 341 of 1989 might impact his position in C.C. No. 766 of 1987, where he is arrayed as an accused. The petitioner contended that deposing in the former case could be contrary to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases argued that witnesses are protected under Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act. Allowing the revision could set a negative precedent for pending cases in Subordinate Courts. The petitioner relied on the case of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1025), while the Special Public Prosecutor cited Janardan Subrao Pai v. Chandra Kamalaksha Pai and State (Delhi Admn) v. Jagjit Singh to support their arguments. The High Court decided not to pass any order in favor of or against the revision petitioner. Instead, the Court directed the trial Court to first proceed with C.C. No. 766 of 1987, where the petitioner is an accused. Only after the disposal of C.C. No. 766 of 1987, should E.O.C.C. No. 341 of 1989 be taken up. This approach was deemed necessary to resolve the controversy surrounding the petitioner effectively. In conclusion, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was directed to prioritize C.C. No. 766 of 1987 and proceed with it first before addressing E.O.C.C. No. 341 of 1989. Both the defense counsel and the prosecution were urged to cooperate for the swift resolution of C.C. No. 766 of 1987. The revision was disposed of with this directive, aiming to streamline the legal proceedings and resolve the petitioner's predicament effectively.
|
