TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, Chennai is under challenge before this Court. 2.The grievance of the revision petitioner, who is cited as witness No. 2 in E.O.C.C. No. 341 of 1989 is that in a similar case in C.C. No. 766 of 1987 filed by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for an offence under Section 120(B) of IPC and Section 132, Section 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, wherein he has been arrayed as A15 and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N. Chandrasekaran, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases would state that under Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act every protection will be given to a witness as per the proviso to Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act and if this revision is allowed that will amount to bad precedent for other cases pending before the Subordinate Courts. 5.The learned senior counsel in suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a decision reported in State (Delhi Admn) v. Jagjit Singh (1989 L.W. (Cri) 430 wherein while dealing with the evidence of an approver it has been held by the Apex Court that it is the duty of the prosecution to examine an approver as a witness even if he resiles or does not comply with the condition imposed upon him while treating him as an approver. 6.Instead of passing any order in this revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|