9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleging various offences under ss. 277 and 278 of the I.T. Act and ss. 107, 120B, 193 and 196, IPC. The 5th accused, Mr. R. R. Vaidya, was, however, concerned only with s. 120B, IPC. Immunity from prosecution was given to the 5th accused under s. 291 of the I.T. Act. When the complainant wanted to examine Mr. Vaidya as a prosecution witness, the 6th accused expressed objection for examining the said Mr. Vaidya as a witness but the petition filed by A-6 expressing such objection was dismissed by the Special judge by his order dated July 1, 1982. Again when Mr. Vaidya was sought to be examined as a prosecution witness, the two petitioners filed Crl. M.P. No. 3103 of 1982, requesting the Special judge to proceed under the provisions of s. 30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under this section has not complied with the condition on which the tender was made or is wilfully concealing anything or is giving false evidence, the Central Government may record finding to that effect, and thereupon the immunity shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, and any such person may be tried for the offence in respect of which the tender of immunity was made or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the same matter and shall also become liable to the imposition of any penalty under this Act to which he would otherwise have been liable. " Section 306, Cr. P.C. provides (only material portions extracted): " (1) With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n under s. 291 of the I.T. Act is to be exercised by different authorities specified therein. The petitioners are, therefore, not correct in requesting the Magistrate to proceed against Mr. Vaidya under the provisions of s. 306, Cr. P.C. That request was rightly negatived by the learned Special Judge. It is submitted that Mr. Vaidya who was an accused cannot at all be examined as a witness for the complainant. Reliance is placed on Desai Digambarrao v. State of A.P. [1978] 2 An WR 579, in support of this submission. That was a case where without recourse to s. 306, Cr. P.C., the prosecution wanted to examine one of the accused as a witness for the prosecution. Such an attempt was discountenanced. That decision cannot be an authority for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... According to him, no guidelines are provided for the exercise of the power under s. 291 in choosing one of the several, of the accused in whose favour the immunity from prosecution was tendered and the absence of such guidelines leads to unbridled exercise of power and s. 291 of the I.T. Act should be struck down as violating art. 14 of the Constitution. do not find any substance in this submission. As in s. 306, Cr. P.C., the immunity from prosecution could be tendered to any person who, in the view of the Central Government, would give evidence in proof of the offences in question. It is not the petitioners' case that they have made any statements in proof of the prosecution case and claimed immunity from prosecution and offered to figur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
