Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Advocate [in both cases] For the O.P.-CBI : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, ASGI Rajiv Nandan Prasad, Sushant Kumar Sinha, Advocates Amicus Curiae: M/s Ashutosh Anand, Nipun Bakshi

---

05/08/03/2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned CBI and learned Amicus Curie. Both these petitions are being heard together as the common order dated 23rd December, 2017 passed in R.C. Case No. 64(A)/96 by the learned Court of A.J.C.-I-cum-Special Judge-VII, CBI (AHD Scam), Ranchi, whereby both these petitioners were asked to show cause as to why pardon granted to them be not withdrawn was under challenge. These two petitioners submitted their show-cause before the learned Court during pendency of these petitions vide Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavits enclosed to the respective petitions objecting to the withdrawal of pardon granted under Section 306 Cr.P.C. Upon consideration of their show cause, learned Court has by the common impugned order dated 31 st May, 2018 assailed through I.A. No. 4947 of 2018 and 4949 of 2018 respectively revoked the pardon granted to these two petitioners. Thus, both the petitioners, who claim to stand on similar footing have challenged the impugned orders cancelling the pardon granted to them earlier by learned CBI Court upon common factual and legal grounds briefly referred to hereinafter.

2. Petitioner Shiv Kumar Patwari (hereinafter referred to as 'Shiv' in short) and petitioner Shailesh Prasad Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'Shailesh' in short) were charge-sheeted as accused persons by the CBI upon conclusion of investigation in the instant R.C Case No. 64(A)/96. Petitioner Shiv Kumar Patwari belonged to the category of Transporter while petitioner Shailesh Prasad Singh belonged to the category of supplier. R.C. Case No. 64(A)/96 related to fraudulent withdrawal under AHD Department from Deoghar Treasury during the period 1991-92 to 1993-94. As per charge- sheet, fraudulent withdrawal to the tune of Rs. 48,210/- were alleged against the petitioner, Shiv Kumar Patwari while Rs. 98,635/- as against the petitioner, Shailesh Prasad Singh is also evident from the impugned order itself. Petitioner, Shiv volunteered to become an approver and made a disclosure statement under Section 306 Cr.P.C on 3rd May, 2005 before learned CBI Court. Learned CBI Court vide order dated 4th May, 2005 granted pardon to this petitioner upon being satisfied that his statement revealed facts showing his involvement in the case being privy to the offences covered in this case and had knowledge of entire circumstances relating to the offences and certain persons concerned in commission thereof. He was granted pardon on the condition that he would make true and full disclosure of the whole circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and every other person concerned with whether as a principal or abettor in the circumstances thereof in terms of Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Section 307 Cr.P.C. That he will abide by his statement made in this case and he would support the prosecution case during trial or otherwise whenever he is called upon to support the prosecution case. Petitioner, Shiv thereafter was examined as P.W.-141 in the instant R.C. Case on behalf of CBI and had made full and truthful disclosure of the complete material circumstances relating to the offence and the persons involved therein.

8. Learned Amicus Curiae has 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.

9. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, C.B.I and learned Amicus Curiae.

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 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.

7
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.