Allahabad High Court
Dilip Kumar Chandel & Ors. vs Union Of India Thru C.B.I./Scb, Lucknow ... on 4 February, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 540
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 14 Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 653 of 2020 Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Chandel & Ors. Opposite Party :- Union Of India Thru C.B.I./Scb, Lucknow & Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Pranjal Krishna,Shivam Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash order dated 07.01.2020 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No.1, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.1300 of 2017 (C.B.I. vs. Subhash Chandra @ Sajjan Pal Singh and Ors.) arising out of Crime No. RC 0532017S0003, under Sections 120B read with Sections 380, 201, 204, 411 & 414 IPC & Section 7, 12 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. CBI/ACB, Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Criminal Appeal bearing no. 964 of 1984 [Basdeo and another vs. State of U.P.] was listed multiple times before this Court for final hearing but the file of the said case along-with 14 other files went missing, hence this Court was pleased to direct the CBI to probe into the matter of missing of files vide its order dated 18.01.2017.
Learned counsel has further submitted that First Information Report dated 09.03.2017 was lodged for commission of offence under Sections 120B r/w Section 380, 201, 204, 411 & 414 IPC and Sections 7, 12 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against six persons including the petitioners and respondent no.2. Petitioner No.1 namely Dilip Kumar Chandel and respondent no.2, namely, Mr. Narendra Kumar, are public servant and one out of the two is alleged to be involved in the alleged offence, on the basis of written complaint of Deputy Registrar (Crl. Bail). I/C Deputy Registrar (Crl. Group 'B'), in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in light of the order dated 18.01.2017 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal bearing no. 964 of 1984 (Basdeo and another vs. State of U.P.).
Learned counsel has submitted that charge-sheet in the above mentioned case was submitted on 05.08.2017 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B read with Sections 201, 204, 380, 411 & 414 IPC and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences thereof against the petitioners, namely, Mr. Dilip Kumar Chandel, Mr. Chandra Veer Singh, Mr. Subhash Chandra @ Sajjan Pal Singh & Mr. Laxman Maurya and the alleged main-accused, namely, Mr. Narendra Kumar (respondent no. 2), peon working in the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. It has also been submitted that after submission of the charge-sheet dated 05.08.2017, the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No. 1, Lucknow was pleased to take cognizance of the above-mentioned offence vide its order dated 27.10.2017.
Learned counsel has submitted that the alleged main-accused respondent no.2/Mr. Narendra Kumar moved an application dated 18.01.2018 bearing no.B-26 through his counsel seeking pardon under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by becoming a prosecution witness to the alleged offence whereon the CBI filed a reply on 04.04.2019.
Learned counsel has submitted that Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No.1, Lucknow decided the said B-26 application without applying the judicial mind into the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order dated 07.01.2020 (supra) is illegal in nature as the same is against the precedent established by Hon'ble Supreme Court and is ultra vires to the settled proposition of law. He has relied on a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.B.I. vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and Anr. reported in (2013) 15 SCC 222 to strengthen his argument. He has submitted that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the observations made in the case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal's case (supra).
It is submitted that the main accused has been tendered pardon by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, C.B.I., Court No.1, Lucknow vide order dated 07.01.2020 despite the fact that even after the statement of the alleged main accused respondent no.2/Narendra Kumar recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the CBI filed charge-sheet against him, the sanction for prosecution has been granted by the competent authority on the same set of facts on which the competent authority was pleased to grant the same to petitioner no.1/Dilip Kumar Chandel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order dated 07.01.2020 (supra) is illegal and causing injustice and therefore, the instant petition be allowed and order dated 07.01.2020 (supra) be quashed.
Per contra, Shri S.B. Pandey, learned A.S.G. has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 07.01.2020 (supra) allowing the application dated 18.01.2018 bearing no.B-26 moved by respondent no.2/Narendra Kumar. Learned A.S.G. has submitted that while allowing the said application under Section 306 Cr.P.C., learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge has assigned proper reasons. Relevant portion, where reason for allowing the said application has been assigned, is reproduced hereunder:-
"मेरे द्वारा माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा पारित उपरोक्त निर्णय का सम्मानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया गया जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा यह सही कहा गया है कि.................................................................................
We are of the view that the grant of pardon by a court under Section 306 Code of Criminal Procedure on being asked by the accused and duly supported by the State is a judicial act and while performing the said act, the Magistrate is bound to consider the consequences of grant of pardon taking into consideration the policy of the State and to certain extent compare the culpability of the person seeking pardon quo the other co-accused.
....................................................
माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के उपरोक्त न्याय-निर्णयन के प्रकाश में यदि प्रार्थी/अभियुक्त की अन्य सह अभियुक्त के सापेक्ष कथित निभायी गयी भूमिका देखी जाये तो यह परिलक्षित होता है कि प्रार्थी/अभियुक्त नरेन्द्र कुमार द्वारा अभियोजन कथनानुसार सर्वप्रथम क्रिमिनल अपील के अभिलेख अनाधिकृत रूप से हटाये गये और दिलीप कुमार चंदेल को हस्तगत किया गया। इसके पश्चात् उक्त अभिलेख न्यायालय प्रांगड़ के बाहर ले जाया गया एवं उन्हें अन्य सह-अभियुक्तगणों द्वारा नष्ट किया गया अभियोजन कथनानुसार अभियुक्त नरेन्द्र कुमार द्वारा अपने धारा-184 द0प्र0सं0 के बयान में समरत तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को स्पष्ट किया गया है एवं अन्य सह-अभियुक्तगणों की अपराध कारित करने में संलिप्तता बतायी गयी है हस्तगत प्रकरण आपराधिक षडयन्त्र पर आधारित है जिसमें प्रत्येक अभियुक्त की एक विशिष्ठ भूमिका है एवं प्रार्थी/अभियुक्त नरेन्द्र कुमार न्यायालय के समक्ष सत्य प्रकटन कर उक्त आपराधिक षड्यन्त्र की कड़ी-दर-कड़ी जोड़ने और एक सम्पूर्ण कड़ी बनाने में निश्चित रूप से सहायक हो सकता है। प्रार्थी/अभियुक्त नरेन्द्र कुमार द्वारा स्वेच्छिक रूप से न्यायालय के समक्ष उपस्थित होकर अपराध से सम्बन्धित पूर्ण एवं सत्य प्रकटन करने की इच्छा भी व्यक्त की गयी है।
अतः उपरोक्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों में दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा306 में प्रावधानित एवं निहित शक्तियों के अधीन प्रार्थी/अभियुक्त नरेन्द्र कुमार द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र बी-26 स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है।
आदेश प्रार्थी/अभियुक्त नरेन्द्र कुमार द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र बी-26 दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 306 में प्रावधानित एवं निहित शक्तियों के अधीन इस शर्त पर स्वीकार किया जाता है कि वह अपराध के सम्बन्ध में स्वयं के एवं अपराध से सम्बन्धित प्रत्येक अन्य व्यक्ति के सम्बन्ध में सभी परिस्थितियों जिसकी उसे जानकारी है, उसे पूर्ण सत्य प्रकटन करेगा। तदनुसार प्रार्थी/अभियुक्त नरेन्द्र कुमार को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि वे निर्दिष्ट दिनांक, समय एवं स्तर पर विचारण में अपना साक्ष्य अंकित करवायें।"
In view of the above, learned A.S.G. has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and no ground is available for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of impugned order dated 07.01.2020 (supra).
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
I have also perused the impugned order as well as other material available on record.
For adjudicating the grievance of the petitioner, it is relevant to reproduce provision of Section 306 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-
"306. Tender of pardon to accomplice.
(1) With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of, the offence, and the Magistrate of the first class inquiring into or trying the offence, at any stage of the inquiry or trial, may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true dis-closure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof."
The object of Section 306 is to allow pardon in cases where grave offence is alleged to have been committed by several persons so that the offence may be brought home with the aid of the evidence of the person pardoned. The legislative intent of this provision is, therefore, to secure the evidence of an accomplice in relation to the whole of the circumstances, within his knowledge, guilty to the offence and every other person concerned. Section 306(1) provides that the concerned Magistrate may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof.
In the case of Lt. Commander Pascal Fernandes v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. - AIR 1968 SC 595, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Court while exercising the power to grant pardon need not examine the culpability of the accused seeking pardon.
In view of the above, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash impugned order dated 07.01.2020 (supra).
Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.2.2020 nishant/-