Jharkhand High Court
Md. Sayeed @ Dr. Md. Sayeed vs State Reported In (2015) 7 Scc 497 on 5 April, 2019
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1339 of 2018
Md. Sayeed @ Dr. Md. Sayeed ............Petitioner
Vrs.
The Union of India through CBI ......... Opposite Party
With
Cr.M.P. No. 1881 of 2018
Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary ............Petitioner
Vrs.
The Union of India through the CBI ......... Opposite Party
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma (in Cr. Apl. No. 1339/ 2018) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar (in Cr. Apl. No. 1881/ 2018) For the CBI : M/s Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Sushant Kr. Sinha : M/s Ashutosh Anand, Nipun Bakshi & Kumar Vaibhav (Amicus Curiae) 05/05.04.2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the C.B.I and learned Amicus Curiae.
2. In these two petitions common order dated 31.05.2018 passed in R.C. No. 38(A)/1996-Pat by the learned Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner -I cum Special Judge-VII, CBI(AHD Scam), Ranchi is under challenge whereby the order granting pardon to these petitioners has been revoked and petitioners have been directed to appear for framing of charge on 14.06.2018. Petitioner Md. Sayeed who was posted as Staff Veterinary Officer at Dumka Treasury at the relevant period from December 1995 to January 1996 had approached this Court initially against the order dated 26.02.2018 asking him to show cause as to why pardon granted to him earlier be not cancelled. After submission of reply to the show cause, the order cancelling pardon dated 31.05.2018 passed during pendency of this petition, has been challenged through I.A. no. 4945 of 2018.
Petitioner Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary (referred to as Rameshwar herein after) was a Head Clerk/ Assistant in the office of Regional Directorate, AHD Dumka during the relevant period December 1995 to January 1996. He has straightway challenged the order dated 31.05.2018 cancelling pardon granted to him earlier and also the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 where under he was asked to show cause.
3. Both these petitioners claim to stand on similar footing. They 2 were earlier made accused in the instant R.C case as accused no.6 and 2 respectively vide charge-sheet dated 11.05.2000. However, they volunteered to make disclosure statement under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C before the learned Trial Court. After acceptance of their disclosure statement made under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C, Learned C.B.I Court granted pardon to petitioner Md. Sayeed and Rameshwar vide order dated 28.04.2003 (Annexure-2) and 28.01.2004 (Annexure-
1) without objection by the C.B.I. Learned Court was satisfied that petitioner Md. Sayeed's disclosure statements revealed his involvement in the case disclosing the facts and circumstances as well as involvement of other accused persons in commission of the offence.
Prosecution had no objection for tendering him pardon. Similarly in the case of petitioner Rameshwar vide order dated 28.01.2004, learned Trial Court was satisfied that his statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C and also in the Court disclosed the facts and circumstances of the case about his involvement as well as involvement of other accused in commission of the offence and the prosecution had got no objection if he was tendered pardon. However, learned Trial Court in the case of both the petitioners imposed condition that they will abide by the statements made in the case earlier in the Court and when ever needed, they will support the prosecution case. Thereafter these petitioners deposed in favour of the prosecution case set up by the C.B.I as P.W.55 and P.W.196 respectively.
4. It is stated on behalf of these petitioners that they never violated the conditions of pardon during deposition as prosecution witness in the instant trial nor any certificate to that effect was given by learned Special Public Prosecutor under Section 308 Cr.P.C. They have made truthful and complete disclosure of all incriminating materials in connection with the offence and the accused persons involved while deposing as prosecution witnesses in compliance of the condition of pardon granted to them. Learned Trial Court has in particular at para 11-25 of the final judgment dated 19.03.2018 discussed in detail the statements of these prosecution witnesses. While recording its findings in respect of the roles of the accused persons facing trial at para 71, 73,76,78,82,85,89,90,104,108,111,117,119,125,128,131,132,134,138,1 45,148,151,152,155,158,161,162,167,171and 172 profusely relied upon 3 the statement of petitioner Md. Sayeed to record conviction against the 19 accused persons, while 12 have been acquitted.
5. It is submitted that these petitioners enjoy the protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India read with Section 132(1) of the Evidence Act. It is also submitted that their testimony even if self incriminating could not be used to arraign them as an accused in the light of the constitutional and statutory protection as above. In support, reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of R. Dineshkumar @ Deena vs. State reported in (2015) 7 SCC 497, paragraphs 44 and 45. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in the cases of State of Maharashtra Vs. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari and others reported in (2010)10 SCC 179 and Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and another reported in (2013) 15 SCC 222, paragraphs 17, 32, 33 and 35, where in the ratio rendered in the case of State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Jagjit Singh reported in AIR 1989 SC 598; 1989 Supp(2)SCC770 has also been relied upon. The Apex Court has defined the scope of the powers under Sections 306 to 308 Cr.P.C in the aforesaid judgments.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court dated 08.03.2019 passed in Cr. M.P. No. 175 of 2018 [ Shiv Kumar Patwari Vs. The Union of India through C.B.I] with Cr.M.P. No. 177 of 2018 [Shailesh Prasad Singh Vs. The Union of India through C.B.I], where a similar order of learned C.B.I. Court passed in R. C. Case No. 64(A)/96 cancelling the pardon granted to the said petitioners under Section 306 Cr.P.C was under challenge. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the latest judgment of this Court dated 29.03.2019 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 994 of 2018 [Shiv Kumar Patwari Vs. The Union of India through C.B.I] and other analogous cases including the case of the present petitioner Md. Sayeed in Cr.M.P. No. 1075 of 2018 and petitioner Rameshwar in Cr.M.P. No. 1885 of 2018. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that fact situation of the aforesaid cases as also the legal principles are same and similar and should apply in the case of the petitioners in the instant R.C. Case No. 38(A)/1996- Pat also. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that in none of these cases there was any certification of Special Public Prosecutor, 4 CBI to the effect that these petitioners had violated the condition of pardon and failed to make complete and truthful disclosure of all the incriminating material circumstances relating to the commission of offence and the accused persons involved therein. All these petitioners submitted their reply to the show cause and categorically pleaded that no condition of pardon has been violated by them and no certification in terms of Section 308 Cr.P. C was made by learned Special Public Prosecutor that these petitioners have willfully concealed anything essential or had given false evidence and not complied with the condition of pardon, which is a pre-requisite for revocation of pardon. Petitioners have also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (Supra) in support of their contention. It is contended that the learned CBI Court has in a wholly erroneous manner revoked the pardon granted to them by order dated 31.05.2018 observing therein that these accused persons who were charge-sheeted, were granted pardon without any cogent reason and were allowed to retain such money which was fraudulently withdrawn from Dumka Treasury in furtherance of criminal conspiracy during the period December 1995 to January 1996 by the accused persons such as officers of the Animal Husbandry Department, the suppliers, officers of the Finance Department, Politicians and Ministers as well. The fraudulent withdrawal was allegedly to the tune of Rs.3,42,37,601/- as stated in the charge-sheet. Learned Trial Court therefore felt necessary to call them to face trial on the basis of evidence on record. Since, cognizance has earlier been taken by the previous Court, hence they were directed to be present for framing of charge against them.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this factual background have assailed the impugned order on the ground that it is in teeth of provisions of Section 306 and 308 of the Cr.P.C. Learned Trial Court has failed to record its findings to the effect that they had violated the conditions of pardon while making statements as prosecution witness during trial. On the contrary the learned Trial Court has relied upon the evidence of these approver witnesses and recorded findings against 19 accused persons vide final judgment dated 19.03.2018. It is also submitted that it was not proper for the learned Court to make observations against its predecessor Court that these petitioners were 5 granted pardon without recording any reason and were allowed to retain the ill gotten money. Relying upon judgment of the Apex Court and judgments passed by this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Patwari (supra) and another analogous case in Cr. M.P. No. 175 of 2018 as also in the case of same petitioner Shiv Kumar Patwari (supra) and other analogous cases led by Cr.M.P. No. 994 of 2018, it has been prayed that the impugned order, if not interfered with, may lead to grave miscarriage of justice.
8. Learned counsel for the CBI has filed counter affidavit in Cr.M.P. No. 1339 of 2018. He has adopted the grounds urged in the said counter affidavit in the connected Cr.M.P. No. 1881 of 2018 also. It is submitted by learned counsel for the CBI that these petitioners who were charge-sheeted accused in the instant R.C case were granted pardon by the learned CBI Court after consent and approval of the competent authority under CBI. They have been examined as P.W.55 and P.W.196 and have fully supported the case of the CBI during trial. A total of 245 prosecution witnesses were adduced by CBI during trial. The gist of the evidence disclosed by the petitioners has been mentioned in page 19-25 of the judgment dated 19.03.2018. Learned predecessor CBI Court had granted pardon to the petitioners considering the disclosures made by them against themselves and other co-conspirator in terms of Section 306 of the Cr.P.C which is also a matter of record. Observation of the learned Trial Court that Investigating Officer supported the case of these accused persons as approver is denied. It is further submitted that CBI has not filed any application to withdraw the pardon granted to these petitioners. No certification in terms of Section 308 of the Cr.P.C has been made by the Special Public Prosecutor to the effect that these petitioners have violated the condition of pardon and failed to make complete and truthful disclosure of all the incriminating material circumstances relating to the commission of offence and the accused persons involved therein. Learned CBI Court has also not recorded any finding that these persons had failed to make complete and truthful disclosures in such manner as required under the condition of pardon. The case of the prosecution was largely dependent upon and supported by the testimony of these approver witnesses. The findings recorded by the 6 learned Trial Court in the final judgment are illustrative of that.
9. Learned Amicus Curiae has also referred to the legal principles involved in respect of grant of pardon and the required conditions prescribed under Section 308 Cr.P.C for its revocation. Learned Amicus Curiae has made reference to the case of Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari and others (supra) and that of Jagjit Singh (supra) on this score.
10. I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, CBI and learned Amicus Curiae in the light of the facts and legal grounds urged, taken note in the foregoing paragraphs. The principles for tendering pardon to an accomplice or its revocation are contained in Section 306 to 308 under Chapter XXIV of the Cr.P.C. The legal principles in that regard laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari and others (supra) and in the case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and another (supra) have been relied upon by this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Patwari (supra) and another analogous case in Cr. M.P. No. 175 of 2018 vide judgment dated 08.03.2019 as also in the case of same petitioner Shiv Kumar Patwari (supra) and other analogous cases led by Cr.M.P. No. 994 of 2018 vide judgment dated 29.03.2019. It is considered proper to extract the relevant para of the judgment dated 29.03.2019 passed in Cr.M.P. No. 994 of 2018 and other analogous cases, which deals with the legal principles on this subject.
"The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari and others reported in (2010)10 SCC 179 has dealt with the salutatory principles of tendering a pardon to an accomplice in terms of Section 306 Cr.P.C. It has been laid down that tendering a pardon to an accomplice is meant to unravel the truth in a grave offence so that guilt of other accused persons concerned in commission of crime could be brought home. The object of Section 306 is to allow pardon in cases where heinous offences is alleged to have been committed by several persons so that with the aid of the evidence of the person granted pardon, the offence may be brought home to the rest. Section 306 Cr.P.C empowers the Magistrate or the learned Trial Court to tender a pardon to a person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, at any stage of the investigation or inquiry or trial of the offence on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence. The Magistrate of the 1st Class is also empowered to tender pardon to an accomplice at any stage of inquiry or trial but not at the stage of investigation on condition of his making 7 full and true disclosure of the entire circumstances within his knowledge relative to the crime. Section 307 vests the Court to which the commitment is made, with power to tender a pardon to an accomplice. The expression, " on the same condition"
occurring in Section 307, refers to the condition indicated in sub-section (1) of Section 306, namely, on the accused making a full and true disclosure 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.
An Accomplice who has been granted pardon under Section 306 or 307 Cr.P.C gets protection from prosecution. When he is called as a witness for the prosecution, he must comply with the condition of making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge concerning the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof and if he suppresses anything material and essential within his knowledge concerning the commission of crime or fails or refuses to comply with the condition on which the tender was made and the Public Prosecutor gives his certificate under Section 308 Cr.P.C to that effect, the protection given to him is lifted. (See paragraphs 15 to 17; Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari (supra). It is apposite to quote the provisions relating to pardon and its revocation as also dealt with at paragraphs 12 to 14 of the same judgment as prescribed under Sections 306, 307 and 308 Cr.P.C. hereunder:
12. Section 306 CrPC makes a provision for tender of pardon to accomplice. It reads as follows:
"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 disclosure 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.
(2) This section applies to--
(a) any offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session or by the Court of a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952);
(b) any offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or with a more severe sentence.
(3) Every Magistrate who tenders a pardon under sub-section (1) shall record--
(a) his reasons for so doing;8
(b)whether the tender was or was not accepted by the person to whom it was made, and shall, on application made by the accused, furnish him with a copy of such record free of cost.
(4) Every person accepting a tender of pardon made under sub-section (1)--
(a) shall be examined as a witness in the court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, if any;
(b) shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial.
(5) Where a person has accepted a tender of pardon made under sub-section (1) and has been examined under sub-section (4), the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence shall, without making any further inquiry in the case,--
(a) commit it for trial--
(i) to the Court of Session if the offence is triable exclusively by that court or if the Magistrate taking cognizance is the Chief Judicial Magistrate;
(ii) to a Court of Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952), if the offence is triable exclusively by that court;
(b) in any other case, make over the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall try the case himself."
13. Section 307 CrPC provides that:
307. Power to direct tender of pardon.--At any time after commitment of a case but before judgment is passed, the court to which the commitment is made may, with a view to obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offence, tender a pardon on the same condition to such person."
14. Section 308 provides for the trial of the approver who has accepted tender of pardon but fails to comply with the condition of pardon. The said provision reads as under:
"308. Trial of person not complying with conditions of pardon.--(1) Where, in regard to a person who has accepted a tender of pardon made under Section 306 or Section 307, the Public Prosecutor certifies that in his opinion such person has, either by wilfully concealing anything essential or by giving false evidence, not complied with the condition on which the tender was made, such person may be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was so tendered or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the same matter, and also for the offence of giving false evidence:9
Provided that such person shall not be tried jointly with any of the other accused:
Provided further that such person shall not be tried for the offence of giving false evidence except with the sanction of the High Court, and nothing contained in Section 195 or Section 340 shall apply to that offence. (2) Any statement made by such person accepting the tender of pardon and recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 or by a court under sub-section (4) of Section 306 may be given in evidence against him at such trial.
(3) At such trial, the accused shall be entitled to plead that he has complied with the condition upon which such tender was made; in which case it shall be for the prosecution to prove that the condition has not been complied with.
(4) At such trial, the court shall--
(a) if it is a Court of Session, before the charge is read out and explained to the accused;
(b) if it is the court of a Magistrate, before the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is taken;
ask the accused whether he pleads that he has complied with the conditions on which the tender of pardon was made.
(5) If the accused does so plead, the court shall record the plea and proceed with the trial and it shall, before passing judgment in the case, find whether or not the accused has complied with the conditions of the pardon, and, if it finds that he has so complied, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, pass judgment of acquittal."
19. In the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and another reported in (2013) 15 SCC 222, paragraphs 17, 32, 33 and 35, the Apex Court has dealt with the principles regarding grant of pardon and also relied upon the ratio rendered in the case of Jagjit Singh(supra) quoted as under:
" 35. Once the immunity extends to the accused and the accused is made an approver, he stands discharged whereupon he ceases to be an accused and would be examined only as a witness unless the said privilege is revoked on violation of the condition of disclosing complete truth. [See State (Delhi Admn.) v. Jagjit Singh and Jasbir Singh.]"
11. In the present case also the learned Trial Court has vide impugned order dated 31.05.2018 revoked the pardon granted to these petitioners on similar grounds as in the case of Shiv Kumar Patwari and other analogous cases (supra) in Cr. M.P. No. 994 of 2018 by the same order dated 31.05.2018. In order to examine the contentions raised by the petitioners, it is proper to extract the operative portion of the instant impugned order dated 10 31.05.2018 hereunder:
"From perusal of records, it is clear that case was registered in pursuance of the order by Hon'ble Supreme Court and by Hon'ble High Court, Patna. The I.O. after investigation submitted charge-sheet against accused persons including the petitioner accused named above. The learned court already took cognizance in the case including these petitioners accused namely 1. Md. Sayeet and 2. Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary. Suddenly, without any recording cogent reason, above accused persons, granted pardon and they were also allowed to retain such money which fraudulently withdrawn from Dumka Treasury in furtherance of criminal conspiracy. Above accused petitioners, in explanation dated 28.02.2018, simply wrote that they supported the prosecution story and prosecution has not given any petition to withdrawn the pardon granted U/s-306 of Cr.P.C. After perusal of records court found that the above accused petitioners granted pardon on different dates after cognizance of offence taken against above accused petitioners. It is also found by the court that the fraudulent money which was withdrawn from Dumka Treasury in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, the above accused petitioners also took active part in the criminal conspiracy. But both accused persons provided the protection of umbrella and above accused persons provide receiving certificate to suppliers whereas suppliers never supplied materials in the AHD, Dumka. Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary was Head Clerk in R.D. AHD Office, Dumka, who processed bill in illegal way and also take active part to pass fake vouchers from treasury and received draft/ cash money from Dumka Treasury.
From perusal of records, it reveals that above employee accused persons received some percentage of money which was fraudulently withdrawn from Dumka Treasury. I.O of this case never opposed the grant pardon which, without any reason granted by the court at the stage when cognizance had already taken against above accused petitioners with other co-accused. So it is demand of justice that accused persons must face the trial in impartial way according to law and do not benefited by any protection. After perusal of all oral and documentary evidences, it is clear that there is no need to provide benefit of approver, so in the ends of justice above accused petitioners is directed to come in the court and face the trial in impartial way according to law. Hence, record put up on 14.06.2018 for framing of charge. Accused namely 1. Md. Sayeed and 2. Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary directed to remain physically present on fixed date."
12. These petitioners have pleaded that their cases stand on same and similar footing as that of petitioners in Cr. M.P. No. 175 of 2018 [ Shiv Kumar Patwari Vs. The Union of India through C.B.I] with Cr.M.P. No. 177 of 2018 [Shailesh Prasad Singh Vs. The Union of India through C.B.I], vide order dated 08.03.2019 as also in Cr.M.P. No. 994 of 2018 [ Shiv Kumar Patwari Vs. The Union of India through C.B.I] and other analogous cases including the case of the present petitioner 11 Md. Sayeed in Cr.M.P. No. 1075 of 2018 and petitioner Rameshwar in Cr.M.P. No. 1885 of 2018 in which the revocation of pardon by the learned CBI Court has been set aside by this Court vide order dated 29.03.2019.
13. The case of the petitioners has been examined by this Court on factual grounds in the light of the legal principles delineated by the Apex Court and also rendered by this Court in the case of other persons referred to above. These two petitioners were granted pardon after acceptance of their disclosure statements made under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C by the learned CBI Court vide order dated 28.04.003(annexure-2) and 28.01.2004(annexure-1) respectively in the individual cases on being satisfied that they had made complete and truthful disclosure of all incriminating materials in connection with the offence and the accused persons involved. Learned Court had granted pardon on the conditions that they would support the case of the prosecution and make complete and truthful disclosure of such material circumstances during trial and at anytime on being called upon to do so. Learned Special Public Prosecutor or CBI have not moved any application for revocation of their pardon. Under the mandate of law, the Special Public Prosecutor was required to certify that these persons had concealed anything or failed to make truthful and complete disclosures of all the material circumstances relating to the case and the persons involved while deposing before the CBI Court as prosecution witnesses. Certification by the Special Public Prosecutor under Section 308 Cr.P.C has been held as a pre-requisite mandatory condition as per the ratio rendered in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) by the Apex Court. Learned Trial Court on the other hand made reference to the deposition of these prosecution witnesses in the final judgment dated 19.03.2018 at Para 11 to 25 and while recording its finding took note of the testimony of prosecution witness no. 55, petitioner Md. Sayeed such as at para 71, 73, 76, 78, 82, 85, 89, 90, and several other paragraphs up to para 172 as also the testimony of petitioner Rameshawar Prasad Chaudhary P.W.196 at para 76, 85 and 117. Learned counsel for the CBI has also pointed out that these prosecution witnesses fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is also striking that despite such a mandatory requirement of law, learned 12 CBI Court has not recorded any finding that these petitioners were found violating the conditions of pardon and have failed to make complete and truthful disclosure of all incriminating materials in connection with the offence and the accused persons involved while deposing as prosecution witnesses adduced by the CBI. At no point of time earlier also it has been shown that there was indictment of these two petitioners by the present learned CBI Court or its predecessor Court that they have violated the conditions of pardon. The observations made by learned CBI Court in the impugned order against its predecessor that these petitioners were granted pardon without recording any reason and were allowed to retain money which were fraudulently withdrawn from Dumka Treasury were wholly uncalled for. It is apposite to rely upon judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and another (supra) quoted above. It has been held therein that once the accused is made approver, he stands discharged whereupon he ceases to be an accused and would be examined only as a witness unless the said privilege is revoked on violation of the condition of dosclosing the complete truth.
14. From the conspectus of facts and discussions made herein above, it is clear that Learned CBI Court has completely misdirected itself while passing the impugned order revoking the pardon granted to the petitioners. None of the ingredients necessary for exercise of the powers under Section 308 Cr.P.C stood fulfilled or satisfied. Learned Court has misconstrued the provisions of Section 308 Cr.P.C and being carried away by wholly irrelevant considerations revoked the pardon granted to these petitioners calling upon them to appear for framing of charge. In such circumstances, this Court finds that legal principles laid down in Cr. M.P. No. 175 of 2018 [ Shiv Kumar Patwari Vs. The Union of India through C.B.I] with Cr.M.P. No. 177 of 2018 [Shailesh Prasad Singh Vs. The Union of India through C.B.I], vide order dated 08.03.2019 as also in Cr.M.P. No. 994 of 2018 [ Shiv Kumar Patwari Vs. The Union of India through C.B.I] and other analogous cases including the case of the present petitioner Md. Sayeed in Cr.M.P. No. 1075 of 2018 and petitioner Rameshwar in Cr.M.P. No. 1885 of 2018 vide order dated 29.03.2019 apply to the facts of the present case as well. On similar facts, it has been held therein that 13 learned CBI Court had committed an error of law in revoking the pardon granted to them.
15. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and as an upshot of the reasons recorded herein above, this Court is of the view that learned CBI Court has went beyond its jurisdiction as conferred under Cr.P.C and committed serious error of law and facts while passing the impugned order. In such circumstances, if the order is not set aide, it would cause grave miscarriage of justice and would lead to abuse of the process of the Court.
16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.05.2018 as against these petitioners is hereby quashed. Both petitions are allowed.
17. Before parting, this Court records its appreciation to the valuable assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae in these cases. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee shall bear their admissible legal remuneration on production of the copy of this judgment along with an application.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) A.Mohanty