Pardon Is Permissible Exercise Of Power By Court If Full Disclosure Of Fact Is Coming In Terms Of It: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has held that a pardon is a permissible exercise of power by the concerned court if full disclosure of fact is coming in terms of the said pardon.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court which considers the provisions which were earlier in the statute book, akin to Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. dealing with tendering of pardon, pardon is a permissible exercise of power by the concerned Court and if full disclosure of fact are coming about in terms of the said pardon, such pardon should be permitted.”
The Bench has upheld the pardon granted to one of the accused in the case relating to the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation).
Advocate H. Pavana Chandra Shetty appeared for the petitioners while Spl. PP P. Prasanna Kumar and Advocate B.K. Arun appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The petitioners i.e., the accused were before the court calling in question an order passed by the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge to deal with criminal cases related to MPs/MLAs whereby it allowed the petition of an accused on an application filed under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C., seeking a pardon on turning as an approver. A crime was registered against several accused including the petitioners by the CBI.
The court directed the framing of charge for offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 409 and 420 of the IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitions came to be dismissed directing continuance of trial against all the accused and therefore, charges were sought to be framed by posting the matter for framing of charges. At that stage, one of the accused filed an application under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C., for the grant of pardon.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “The Apex Court holds that if by tendering of pardon prosecution thinks that it will be in the best interest of the successful prosecution of the other offenders whose conviction is not easy without the approver’s testimony, then the Court should accept it.”
The Court said that it did not find any warrant to interfere with the order passed by the concerned court.
“The concerned Court if it has not proceeded with the trial on account of pendency of the subject petition, shall now make every endeavour to conclude the proceedings by regulating its procedure”, further said the Court.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title- M/s. Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
