How can accused in one case become witness in another: Court to prosecution

Two other accused—Asim Chakravarti and Sunil Milak—moved applications before the Ahmedabad district court last week seeking their pardon by turning approver against Sharma. Milak—a director at the Welspun Group and a partner at Value Packaging—in his submission, stated that he fell under the category of “accomplice” and should be treated as an “eye-witness”. He “would be helpful in preventing the escape of the prime offender and advance the cause of justice”, the submission reads.

Milak is a witness in the PMLA case against Sharma and has been charged under IPC sections 465, 467 and 471 (forgery) and under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) in a 2014 FIR at the ACB police station of Kutch.

Chakravarti—another director at Welspun Group—has also moved two applications seeking grant of pardon by making him approver with respect to two FIRs filed with the Rajkot CID in 2010. In the first FIR, he was not named as an accused but made an accused in the chargesheet filed in 2015 for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was named an accused in the second FIR.

Chakravarti has submitted that he “ought to have been made a witness rather than an accused” and if made an approver in the current case, the evidence he would give “would ultimately help in advancing the cause of justice, which will be in the interest of successful prosecution of the prime offender (Sharma).”

Notably, Chakravarti has been cited as a witness in a 2018 FIR against Sharma lodged at the ACB police station and Milak is a witness in the ED-initiated PMLA case.

During Friday’s hearing, the prosecution submitted before the Ahmedabad rural court of principal district judge DM Vyas that it has no objection to the accused being made approvers. “When true and voluntary disclosures are coming from accomplices, it may be taken into consideration,” the prosecution stated.

Vyas, however, inquired as to how Chakravarti has been made an accused in one FIR and a witness in the PMLA case. “Prima facie, one agency committed the misstep…prosecution’s case depends on the investigation,” he added, seeking an explanation from the prosecution.

The prosecution informed the court that it will inquire the same and respond to the queries. The court has posted the matter next for April 11.

Meanwhile, Sharma, currently in judicial custody in the latest FIR filed against him and two others in March, has moved for bail before the Gujarat High Court after a Bhuj sessions court rejected his bail plea last month. On April 5, the court of Justice Nirzar Desai issued a notice to the state government to respond by April 27.

On April 6, the Gujarat police arrested the third accused in this case—former Bhuj town planner Natubhai Desai—almost a month after the FIR was filed. Investigating officer Vasantkumar Nayi said Desai was presented before the court Friday and the police had been granted his remand until 3 pm on Saturday.

The March FIR has alleged loss to the exchequer after the three accused regularised a piece of encroached land in Kutch allegedly at lower rates. While the FIR was lodged in 2023, the FIR alleges that the offence was committed between November 2004 and May 2005.