In the case of Messi Nancy Jain v. State of Maharashtra 1985, under Section 306, any person who is directly or indirectly related to any of the above mentioned offense can be pardoned on the condition that he is related to the crime and incident Will accurately state all the situations that are known to him.

In the case of K Saraswati v. Special Police Replacement CBI, it is stated that there can be no interference by the High Court in the jurisdiction of the Magistrate regarding pardon.

The Approver - Case Law

Delivery of the case
Under sub-section 5 of Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the magistrate hearing is not competent and the matter is considered by the Sessions Court, the cognizable magistrate is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, then the case will be referred to the Sessions Court. To. The case under section 209 is referred to the sessions court. 

The power of pardon should be exercised on the basis of principles established by the magistrate against the law and not on the application of the opposing party. Thus, the power of forgiveness is not exercised depending on the applications. 

The prosecution presents a government witness who is to be pardoned. The public witness, who has been resolved on the basis that he will tell the public prosecutors all the facts related to the case, is no longer an accused, but becomes a witness. The purpose of pardoning a government witness by the court is to take the evidence of the accused as a witness. The fact that the accused has given a statement of sanction under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code will not be against pardon under Section 306.

In the case of Bangaru Laxman v. State AIR 2012 Supreme Court 1377, the accused was charged with conspiracy and under Section 52 of the Corruption Act 1988, disclosure of full details of the offense resulted in the co-perpetrator, the special court pardoning him. gave. done.

This pardon was opposed by the appellant on the ground that the magistrate including the Special Judge would have to pardon the accused before filing the charge sheet and set aside the said orders in violation of section 306.

Rejecting this argument, the High Court decided that before filing a charge sheet against the accused, if the magistrate or special judge resolves that the co-accused is giving complete information about the offense and is eligible for pardon . So he can do that.

There is no opposition to this and there is a clear mention under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision of the Magistrate Court in this regard is based on its judicial discretion, the law shall be honorable and in accordance with the provisions of section 306. The Supreme Court, supporting the said decision, emphasized that the basic purpose of conferring power is to be pardoned by the magistrate at this stage, that no injustice has been done to the accused and the trial proceedings can be speedily dealt with.

In Renuka Bai v. State of Maharashtra, a co-offender, who was granted amnesty under section 306, committed the offense of giving false evidence to the accused. The Court held that the culprit awarded pardon, the court did not give correct information about the crime and the High Court exercised its inherent power and initiated action against it which the Supreme Court upheld.
In the case of SS Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh, it is said that if a witness makes voluntary self-deposing statements leading to self-incrimination and such evidence is given, then he is excused for section 306 Will not be eligible for The court may take action against it at its discretion.

The credibility of the evidence given by the piercing witness depends on two things:

1) There is reasonable reason to believe that he is a reliable witness and is not giving any false information.

2) The evidence given by him should be adequately corroborated.

Consequences of non-compliance with conditions of Approver

Section 308 (section 308) of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers to the process of prosecuting a person who does not comply with the conditions of pardon, as a result of not complying with the terms of section 308. All the arrangements related to this are given under this section. According to the provisions described in this section, a person who has been granted Shamadan under Sections 306 and 307 may be eligible for the trial of an offense of which he has been granted pardon. In relation to any other offense, which he appears guilty of, he may be called for trial, provided that the public prosecutor testifies that he deliberately concealed or endorsed anything else as a condition of forgiveness. is. Violation.

Post a Comment

Please don't enter any spam link in comment box

Previous Post Next Post