In Brief
Three suspects in a corruption case had confessions recorded by investigators but were cited as prosecution witnesses rather than charged as accused. Other accused moved to summon them as co-accused. The High Court agreed, reasoning that Section 306 Cr.P.C. (pardon procedure) was the only lawful way to use an accomplice as a witness. The Supreme Court held that the prosecutor's discretion to cite suspects as witnesses is not absolute and doesn't require strict Section 306 compliance. However, courts must review this decision by balancing whether using them as witnesses better serves justice than charging them, considering their utility in proving charges against more serious accused. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on these principles.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.