accused filed
an application under Section 306 Cr.P.C seeking pardon and
becoming approver on 18.07.2000. The applicant herein also moved
an application ... learned
Special Judge allowed the application of Mr. Abhishek Verma seeking
pardon and made him an approver. The order was challenged by the
applicant herein
stated that he accepted his fault and
requested to be pardoned. He is an Inspector and acted totally
in an indisciplined and disobedience manner ... that the
applicant, during OR, accepted his fault and requested to be
pardoned is incorrect and not supported by any documentary
evidence.
ii) The presence
excusable, but a mistake which would tantamount to negligence cannot be pardoned. In the former case a court can accept that ordinary human fallibility precludes
time antecedent to their commencement; as statutes of oblivion or of pardon. They are certainly retrospective, and literally both concerning and after the facts committed
after the due date with interest. It is something which is not pardonable in law. Though the law does not say so, authorities working under
technical breach of law and it should have been pardoned.
In case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa 86 ITR 26
[Supreme Court ... held that technical breach of
provisions of law has to be pardoned when the same is bonafide
and there is no loss to revenue
Sanjiv Chaturvedi vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 3 February, 2016
Central Administrative
time antecedent to their commencement; as statutes of oblivion or of pardon. They are certainly retrospective, and literally both concerning and after the facts committed
along with applicant and no body will be witnesses
unless they are pardon by the Magistrate and taken as
approver. And hence in the present
excusable, but a mistake which would tantamount to negligence cannot be pardoned. "
44. In " Dr.Laxman Balakrishna Joshi Vs. Dr.Trimbak Bapu Godbole
