In Brief
A bank cashier who admitted to interpolating fixed deposit documents at the pre-summoning stage was later summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC when another witness testified about his involvement. The cashier claimed immunity under Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Supreme Court held that while Section 132 protects a witness's own statements from use in criminal proceedings, it does not grant complete immunity from prosecution when independent, substantial evidence of complicity exists. A trial court may invoke Section 319 CrPC if cogent material apart from the witness's own statement establishes prima facie involvement. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.