CBI Vs. ANDASU RAVINDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the CBI against the order dated 06.02.2014 passed by the learned IX Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.103 of 20 13 in C.C.No.3 of 2013, whereby, the petition filed by CBI seeking permission to include A4, A5 and A6, whose names have been mentioned in the final report in the second column as 'not sent up for trial', as additional witness, was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts which are necessary to decide the issue involved in this revision petition, are as follows:

(3.) Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the revision petitioner/CBI submitted that though initially FIR was registered only against A1 to A3, the prosecution has filed a Memo, dated 23.09.2011 before the Court below to include A4 to A6 in the FIR. He further submitted that thereafter, the statements of A4 to A6 were recorded under Section 164(1) Cr.P.C. on 30.09.2011 by XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. Since, in the statements of A4 to A6, there was no incriminating material against A4 to A6, their names were dropped in the charge sheet and in column No.2 of the charge sheet, A4 to A6 were shown as "accused persons not sent up for trial". He further submitted that as A4 to A6 are not accused persons, there is no need for tendering pardon by treating them as approvers by the concerned Magistrate, as envisaged under Section 306 Cr.P.C. Hence, learned Special Pubic Prosecutor submitted that there cannot be any legal impediment in examining A4 to A6 as witnesses, since their names have been dropped in the charge-sheet by mentioning them as "accused persons not sent up for trial". Hence, the reasons assigned by the trial Court in the above extracted paragraph 7, are not legally sustainable. In this regard, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the revision petitioner/CBI, by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2014 (3) SCC 306 (Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana), submitted that in the instant case, charge sheet / final report, which was filed by the CBI showing A4 to A6 as "accused persons not sent up for trial", was not disagreed by the Court below and therefore, as on date, there cannot be any bar in examining A4 to A6 as witnesses. Under such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition filed by the CBI to treat them as additional witnesses.