LexGIRISH SHARMA & ORS. versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2017] 7 S.C.R. 582
GIRISH SHARMA & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
(Crimina!Appeal Nos. 939-940 of2017)
AUGUST 23,2017
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.161, 164, 306 -
C Allegation of corruption - Charge sheet against persons including
senior officers of State undertaking - During investigation,
statements of appellants were recorded under s.161 and 164 -
Appellants were not arrayed as accused but were cited as witness
in the charge sheet -After court took cognizance against the accused
named in the chargesheet, some of the accused made applications
D
ulss.1931319 to summon these three persons as accused- Trial court
rejected the application, however, High Court summoned appellants
as accused - High. Court found the version of the appellants in
their statements ulss.161 and 164 self incriminating - Held: In the
instant case, decision of the High Court was not arrived at by
E weighing the interest of justice in having the appellants as accused
instead of their utility as witnesses - The decision was based on the
sole consideration of materia{,against them - It was erroneously
assumed that without following the procedure of s.306, an
accomplice could not be cited as a witness - Further question,
whether rejecting the proposal of prosecution to cite the appellants
F
as witnesses would jeopardise prosecution case against more serious
accused was not gone into - Thus matter needs fresh consideration
on this touchstone - Matter remanded to High Court for fresh
consideration - While considering whether these three persons be
summoned as accused or not, the High Court shall not take into
G account the statements made by them either under s.161 or s.164 as
proposed witnesses.
H
Chandran @ Manichan @ Maniyan v. State of Kera/a
(2011) 5 SCC 161 : [2011) 8 SCR 273 - referred to.
582
GIRISH SHARMA & ORS. v. THE STATE OF
CHHATTISGARH & ORS.
Case Law Reference
(2011} 8 SCR 273
referred to
Para4
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
Nos.939-940 of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.03.2017 of the High Court
in Criminal Revision Petition in Revision Petition No. 403 of 2016 and
484of2016
WITH
Cr!. A. No. 941-942 of2017.
SLP(Crl.) No. 5363 of2017.
T. P. (Cr!.) No. 2~~ of2017.
583
A
B
c
Tushar Mehta, ASG, C.D. Singh, AAG, Mahesh Jethmalani,
Sidharth Luthra, Sanjay Hegde, K.V. Vishwanathan, Ramesh P. Bhatt,
D
Sr. Advs. Pal!av Mongia, Ravi Sharma, Abhinav Goyah Ardhendumauli
. Kumar Prasad, Panshul Chandra, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad,
Namit Saxena, Nirmal Kumar Ambashtha, Abhay Kumar, Amit Kr. Singh,
Saurabh Mishra, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Uday Manaktala,
Peeyush Bhatia, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Dhananjay Ray, Kailash Pandey,
Ranjeet Singh, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Gaurav
E
. Shukla, Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Avi Singh,
Pahlad Singh Sharma, Ms. Pallavi Sharma, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
· The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
Cd.Appeal No(s).939-940 of2017
.F
1. On J2•h February, 2015, FIR No.9/2015 was registered by the
Anti-Corruption Bureau and Economic Offences Wing under the
provisions of Indian Penal Code and Prevention ofCorruptionAct, 1988.
G
The allegation was that huge amount was recovered from possession of
accused which was as a result of corruption. The FIR was against 27
-- persons but after investigation chargesheet was filed against 16 persons.
The persons against whom the chargesheet was filed. included senior
officers of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation.
H
•
584
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 7 S.C.R.
2. During investigation, statements of three of the accused
mentioned in the FIR, namely, Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv and
Jeet Ram Yadav, who are appellants before us, were recorded under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. They were not arrayed as accused but
were cited as witnesses in the chargesheet. After the court took
cognizance against the accused named in the chargesheet, some of the
accused made applications under Section 193/319 Cr.P.C. to summon
the above three persons, Girish Sharma, Arvind Singh Dhruv and Jeet
Ram Yadav as accused.
3. The trial court rejected the said applications but the matter was
carried in revision before the High Court and the High Court allowed the
summoning. The reason given by the High_ Court in the order of
summoning isExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.