Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Another main argument which' was canvassed before the High Court related to the applicability of ss. 162 and 163 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the effect of the violation thereof, if any. For the appellant, it was argued that the taking of signed statements from persons who were eventually going to be examined in the criminal proceedings by giving them assurances of immunity and thereafter relying on their subsequent unsigned statements those under S. 161(3) of the Code for the purpose of S. 173 amounted to a fraud on the procedure established by law. It was contended that as the statements recorded under s. 161 were the material on which the Special Judge had to consider whether the charge was groundless under S. 251-A of the Code, the illegality "corroding the foundation vitiated the enquiry and necessitated the discharge of the appellant." The High Court examined the case made out in the affidavits of the appellant and the counter affidavits on behalf of the State. It expressed great dissatisfaction at the variance in the attitude of the State in the different affidavits in that whereas in the first counter affidavit there was no contradiction of the appellant's averment that assurances of immunity had been given to all the 18 persons examined before the lodging of the first information report, the plea put forward in a subsequent affidavit was that such assurance had been given only to two persons, namely, the two subordinates of the appellant and only after signed statements had been given by them. The Court was however not satisfied that a direction was called for for the prosecution of the subordinate officers also. Further the High Court was not impressed with the plea of hostile discrimination against the appellant observing that although the "policy of not securing judicial pardon to accomplices by bringing them as approvers but retaining them at the sole discretion of the prosecution might be open to question"