Ore transportation case: Karnataka HC asks special court to consider treating foresters as accused, not witnesses

Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court has directed the special court, trying the case of illegal transportation of iron ore, to consider afresh an application seeking to consider 22 forest officials as accused, who are listed as prosecution witnesses. Justice M Nagaprasanna said this while partly allowing the petition filed by S Muthaiah, Retired Deputy Conservator of Forest, Ballari district who is accused no 4 in the case.

The CBI case was that former minister G Janardhana Reddy had used forged permits for illegal transportation of iron ore. The prosecution said that 23 forest officials, who held office at the intermittent intervals, acted in connivance with the accused. The officials admitted that they had signed blank permits used for illegal transportation of iron ore.

Muthaiah filed an application under CrPC section 319 seeking 23 witnesses to be tried as accused and cannot be brought in as witnesses against him and other accused. The special court rejected the application on the ground that there was no reason to bring them as accused, as the court has not treated them as hostile.

The petitioner contended that the officials named as witnesses had admitted in the cross-examination that they had signed the blank permits and hence an accused posing as a witness, cannot depose against other accused.

On the other hand, the CBI argued that an accused cannot plead that some other person should be brought in as an accused. If at all there is evidence and if it is found necessary, the prosecution itself will file an application, it was submitted.

After perusing the provisions of CrPC Section 319, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that a witness who is in a position of accomplice can always be dragged to the position of an accused, only by following due process of law. “An accused can seek pardon and become an approver and depose against the other accused. It is ununderstandable as to how prosecution witnesses can seek pardon and depose against the other accused. But, in the case at hand they are witnesses who are participants in the crime. Participants in the crime to some extent, as they have admitted signing blank documents,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.

The court further said, “Therefore, it is rudimentary that an accused cannot be a witness on behalf of the prosecution, and a person who is admittedly guilty cannot run away from punishment, merely because he has been arrayed as a witness. He cannot be in a position of prosecution witness if he is particeps criminis, except in accordance with law.”

The high court said the special court now has to answer the application under CrPC section 319 in accordance with law. “The concerned court is at liberty to regulate its procedure towards compliance with the order passed by this court. Till the exercise as above gets over, the afore-named witnesses shall not be examined as prosecution witnesses,” the court said.