In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has quashed a trial court order that rejected an application to treat prosecution witnesses as accused in a case related to illegal mining. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over the matter, emphasized that individuals who have admitted to committing an offense cannot evade prosecution merely by being designated as witnesses.
“A guilty person cannot escape punishment by turning witness,” the court observed, underscoring that legal procedures must be followed to determine whether such individuals should be tried as accused.
Case Background
The case originated from an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) following a Supreme Court directive on September 23, 2011, regarding large-scale illegal iron ore mining in Karnataka. The CBI registered case R.C.18-A/2011 against multiple individuals, including senior forest department officials, for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The allegations involved a conspiracy where blank Form 27 permits—official documents required for transporting iron ore—were signed by forest officials and later misused to facilitate illegal transportation and sale. The charge sheet was filed in Special C.C. No. 116/2012, and charges were framed against eight accused, including S. Muthaiah, a retired Deputy Conservator of Forests.
Legal Issues Before the Court
1. Should prosecution witnesses who admitted to signing blank permits be treated as accused?
2. Can individuals directly involved in illegal activities be used as prosecution witnesses without legal clearance?
3. Did the trial court err in rejecting the application under Section 319 of the CrPC without due consideration?
High Court’s Key Observations
The High Court noted that 23 forest officials, who were listed as prosecution witnesses, had admitted in their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC that they had signed blank permits. These documents were later used by the primary accused, including former minister G. Janardhana Reddy, for illegal mining operations.
The petitioner, S. Muthaiah, filed an application under Section 319 CrPC, arguing that these witnesses were not mere observers but active participants in the illegal mining scheme and should be treated as accused. However, the trial court dismissed the application, stating that since the prosecution had not declared them hostile, there was no reason to charge them.
Justice Nagaprasanna found this reasoning flawed, stating:
“A person who is admittedly guilty cannot escape punishment merely because he has been arrayed as a witness.”
He further emphasized that individuals who played an active role in an offense must either be granted pardon under Sections 306 or 307 CrPC and turned into approvers or be treated as accused and prosecuted accordingly.
Court’s Verdict
The Karnataka High Court quashed the trial court’s order dated January 6, 2025, directing it to:
– Reconsider the Section 319 CrPC application and decide whether the 23 witnesses should be prosecuted.
– Suspend their examination as witnesses until a proper legal determination is made.
– Ensure due process in evaluating their role in the conspiracy.
Arguments from Both Sides
For the Petitioner:
– Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha, appearing for S. Muthaiah, argued that the 23 forest officials were accomplices in the crime and could not be treated as neutral witnesses.
– He contended that under Section 319 CrPC, courts are empowered to summon additional accused based on evidence presented during the trial.
– He cited Supreme Court precedents, including Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) and Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2023), which hold that a witness complicit in a crime must either face prosecution or formally seek pardon.
For the CBI:
– Special Public Prosecutor P. Prasanna Kumar argued that accused individuals cannot dictate who should be prosecuted.
– He asserted that the CBI would determine whether to charge the witnesses based on the trial’s progress.
– He claimed that departmental inquiries against these officials did not automatically warrant their prosecution under criminal law.
