Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 306 crpc in Krishna Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 17 December, 2011Matching Fragments
Object of Provisions of Section 306 CrPC
7. As noticed above, the object underlying provision of Section 306 of CrPC is to allow pardon in cases where the offence is alleged to have been committed by several persons, so that with the aid of the evidence of the person so tendered pardon, the offence is brought to home as against the other accused.
Herein, there are 13 accused persons including the applicant petitioner Krishna Kumar and the applicant intends to provide evidence to the prosecution so that the offence is brought to home as against his co accused.
11. A perusal of statement under Section 164 CrPC recorded by Sh. Siddharth Mathur, Metropolitan Magistrate, CentralII, Delhi on 22.09.2010 would reveal that application under Section 306 CrPC moved by Krishna Kumar accused before Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi was assigned to the Metropolitan Magistrate on the same day i.e. 22.09.2010 with the direction that statement of Krishna Kumar be recorded on that very date itself. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate did not provide sufficient time to the Metropolitan Magistrate even to defer the recording of statement for a day or two and as such, the Metropolitan Magistrate had no option but to record the statement on the same day. This Court has gone through the two statements i.e. made before the IO and the other recorded under Section 164 CrPC and found that the latter one cannot be said to have been just read over by the applicantpetitioner, from his prerecorded statement, to the stenographer of the Metropolitan Magistrate.
Therefore, the observation made by Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that the statement under Section 164 CrPC is verbatim identical to prerecorded statement is not justified.
15. Another ground put forth by Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in declining tender of pardon is that similar application was earlier filed by the applicantpetitioner but withdrawn. There is no bar under Section 306 CrPC for filing of a fresh application if the earlier one is withdrawn for one reason or the other, and not adjudicated by the Court.
16. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has observed in the order that the Magistrate who tenders pardon has to give reasons for the same. In Lt. Cdr. Pascal Fernandes's, Hon'ble Apex Court has eloquently explained that the powers of the judge under Section 306 CrPC are not circumscribed by any condition except one that the action must be with a view to obtaining the evidence of a person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence. The other condition is that the disclosure going to be made by the person should be full and true as to himself and as to any other person concerned as principle or abettor. Hon'ble Apex Court specifically laid down that there is no provision for recording of reasons for so doing. Hon'ble Apex Court even went on to observe that even there is no provision for recording a preliminary statement of the person.