Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts necessary for determination of the aforesaid question are that informant Charudatta Pawar is alleged to have been assaulted by four persons in a Hotel in the night between 25th and 26th of April, 1996 and on the basis of the report given by him CR No.102/1996 was registered at Chalisgaon Police Station.
During the investigation the appellant figured as a witness and his statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
By an order of the Bombay High Court dated 26th April, 1999 both the criminal cases i.e. police case and companyplaint case were directed to be tried and decided simultaneously.
The State of Maharashtra aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed Criminal Revision Application No.268 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court which by its order dated 27th April, 2001 allowed the application and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate, inter alia, observing that numbersuch blanket protection can be given to the appellant.
The said case, hereinafter referred to as the police case, is pending for trial before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chalisgaon.
97/96 in spite of accusations against him in the deposition of companyplainant Charudatta Esh.142 and admission of companyplainant dated 26.4.1996 Exh.143 which are pieces of evidence relevant in C.No.3/98, since he is number charged by the charge framed in that case.
In regard to the same incident which is the subject matter of the trial in the aforesaid Police case, a companyplaint was filed impleading the appellant herein besides five other persons as accused.
The learned Magistrate by its order dated 5th September, 2000 allowed the application and observed that the prosecution cannot examine the appellant as a witness in the Police case.
In this case, hereinafter referred to as the companyplaint case the Judicial Magistrate took companynizance of the offence and issued process by order dated 2nd February, 1998 against the four accused who were already chargesheeted in the police case and three other accused including the appellant herein.
After investigation Chalisgaon Police Station submitted chargesheet against 4 accused persons named in the first information report on 24.5.1997.
The Bombay High Court further directed the Magistrate in sesin of the trial to companyclude the trial within stipulated time.
Appellant figures as accused No.6 in the companyplaint case and according to the allegation he companyspired with other accused in companymission of a crime.
CHANDRAMAULI KR.
The appellant filed an application before the learned Magistrate in sesin of the Police case objecting his examination as witness, inter alia, companytending that in view of the Constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 20 3 of the Constitution of India, he cannot be companypelled to be a witness in the case as he himself is an accused in relation to the same incident in the companyplaint case.
PRASAD, J. The short but important question of law which falls for our determination in the present appeal is as to whether protection under Article 20 3 of the Constitution is available to the appellant, who though number an accused in the police case in which he has been asked to depose as a witness but figures as an accused in the companyplaint case filed later on in relation to the same incident.
