Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Nanak Waswani (Accused No.1), and non-applicant No.2, Suresh Chichghare (Accused No.2), were facing trial for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During the trial, Accused No.2 filed an application seeking pardon under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), undertaking to make a full and true disclosure. The Special Court initially forwarded the application to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and after Accused No.1 opposed it, the court rejected both Accused No.2's and Accused No.1's separate pardon applications by a common order dated 3rd January 2011, observing that Accused No.2's evidence was not absolutely essential for successful prosecution. Subsequently, Accused No.2 filed another application for pardon, which was allowed by the Special Court on 13th July 2012 without recording reasons or following the procedure under Section 306 CrPC. Aggrieved, Accused No.1 filed the present application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the order. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 307 CrPC and noted that the Special Court had not recorded any reasons for granting pardon, nor had it complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 306 CrPC, including examining the accused as a witness. The court also observed that the earlier rejection of the pardon application on the ground that the evidence was not essential had not been addressed. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the order dated 13th July 2012 granting pardon to Accused No.2, holding that the order was unsustainable in law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Pardon - Section 307 CrPC - Grant of Pardon - The Special Court granted pardon to Accused No.2 without recording reasons and without following the procedure under Section 306 CrPC. The High Court held that the order was unsustainable as the court failed to consider that the evidence of the proposed approver was not absolutely essential for the prosecution, and the pardon was granted without examining the accused as a witness. The order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Pardon - Section 307 CrPC - Tender of Pardon - The High Court held that under Section 307 CrPC, the court must record reasons for granting pardon and must comply with the provisions of Section 306 CrPC. The pardon can only be tendered after the accused is examined as a witness. In the present case, the Special Court did not record any reasons and did not examine the accused as a witness before granting pardon. (Paras 5-10) C) Criminal Procedure - Pardon - Section 307 CrPC - Essentiality of Evidence - The High Court observed that the Special Court had earlier rejected the pardon application of Accused No.2 on the ground that his evidence was not absolutely essential for successful prosecution. However, the subsequent order granting pardon did not address this aspect and was passed without any change in circumstances. The order was therefore arbitrary and liable to be set aside. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order granting pardon to Accused No.2 under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was legally valid and sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal application and quashed and set aside the order dated 13th July 2012 passed by the Special Court granting pardon to Accused No.2 under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Law Points
- Pardon under Section 307 CrPC requires recording of reasons
- compliance with Section 306 CrPC
- and tender of pardon only when evidence is absolutely necessary for prosecution
- Pardon cannot be granted without examining the accused as a witness
- Section 307 CrPC mandates that the person to whom pardon is granted must be examined as a witness in the trial
