Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Application is accordingly, allowed. File be sent to the Court of Ld. ACMM for recording of statement of accused as per provisions of Section 306 Cr. P.C. Ahlmad is directed to send the file complete in all respects to the Court of Ld. ACMM on or before 30.08.2012.‖ xii. Thereafter, the statement of respondent no. 2 under Section 306 of the CrPC was recorded by the learned CMM. The learned ASJ after going through the said statement of respondent no. 2, granted the benefit of being an approver, vide order dated 28.09.2012.
12. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
13. The provision of Sections 306 and 307 of the CrPC, 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 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.

18. Thus, even if the person is granted pardon and he/she does not abide by condition under Section 306 or Section 307 of the CrPC then the same can be withdrawn and the person so granted pardon can be prosecuted. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions of Sections 306/307/308 of the CrPC demonstrates the inherent scheme of checks and balances in cases where a person is granted pardon and is examined as an approver. Any grant of pardon to a person would be subject to the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid provisions.

26. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 28.09.2012, granting pardon is a one line order and therefore Neutral Citation Number: 2023:DHC:2108 cryptic in nature. It is submitted that as per the provision of Section 306(3) of the CrPC., the Magistrate has to record his reasons for tendering pardon to an accused and application of mind should be part of the order. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that mere recording the fact that the learned ASJ has read the statement made by respondent no. 2, would not satisfy the requirements of Section 306(3) of the CrPC. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 submitted that the learned ASJ had applied his mind judicially and was conscious of the procedure to be followed for the purposes of Section 306 of the CrPC. It was submitted that the application of mind by the learned trial Court is apparent from the fact that respondent no. 2 was allowed to withdraw her first application for grant of pardon with liberty to file fresh with better details. It was submitted that the order dated 21.08.2011 was a detailed order wherein the learned trial Court, after considering the averments made in the second application and arguments at the bar directed that the statement of respondent no. 2 needs to be recorded before granting her pardon.