Mahaveer Prasad Sharma vs Cbi
2010 Latest Caselaw 5297 Del

                 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of Reserve: 18th November, 2010
                                                 Date of Order: 22nd November, 2010
+ Crl.M.C.No. 1251/2010
%                                                                      22.11.2010

        Mahaveer Prasad Sharma               ... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Vikram Singh Panwar, Advocate
                         With Mr. Vishwajeet Singh & Mr. Ritesh, Advs.

                Versus


        CBI                                          ... Respondent
                                 Through: Mr. Harish Gulati, Advocate


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?     Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                    Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                            Yes.

JUDGMENT

By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 18th

March, 2010 whereby application made by the petitioner for summoning PW-1

Naveen Kaushik and PW-49 Deepak Raj as additional accused persons was

dismissed by the trial Court with. The learned trial Court observed that there was

not enough incriminating evidence on file for summoning these two witnesses as

accused persons and dismissed the application.

2. The petitioner is facing trial in FIR registered under Section 120B

read with Section 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of

Prevention of Corruption Act. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was

filed and the petitioner made this application for summoning witnesses cited by

the prosecution as accused persons. The statement on the basis, of which the

petitioner had sought framing of charges against the witnesses are the

statements under Section 162 Cr.P.C. and it is settled law that any statement

made to the Investigating Officer while conducting enquiry cannot be utilized for

any other purpose except as provided under this Section. The statement can be

utilized for contradicting such witness in the manner provided under Section 145

of the Indian Evidence Act and for no other purpose. Thus, the statement cannot

be treated as a material against the maker of the statement for the purpose of

framing charges against him. If the statement given is treated as confessional

statement made to police even then a confessional statement made to the police

official is not admissible under law and cannot be ground for framing charges

against the person. The statement recorded by police official during investigation

of a witness cannot be used against the witness himself except as provided

under Section 162 Cr.P.C. and cannot be considered as an incriminating material

against the witness to frame charges against the witness in the same case in

which he has given evidence. A witness may make statement to the police that

accused had come and sold property to him, the police may even seize the

property sold by the accused, but that would not allow Court to frame charges

against the witness as a receiver of the stolen property or of similar other offence.

The Court can frame charges against those persons against whom evidence has

been collected by the prosecution and against whom Court finds there was

sufficient evidence to proceed against. The witnesses cannot be proceeded

against on the basis of statement made under Section 161/162 Cr.P.C. to the

police as such statements cannot be treated as material for framing charges

against the witness in the same case. I find no force in this petition. The petition

is herby dismissed.

November 22, 2010                           SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn