LexC.B.I. versus ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2013] 14 S.C.R. 957 C.8.1. V. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1837 of 2013) NOVEMBER 22, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: A 8 s. 306 - Tender of Pardon - Power and role of Court - c Held: While considering grant of pardon, the Court is bound to consider the consequences of grant of pardon taking into consideration the policy of the State and comparing the culpability of the person seeking pardon qua the other accused. ss. 397 and 401 - Revisional powers - Invocation of - Right of co-accused to object to the application of accomplice D uls. 306 Cr.P. C. - Held: Though the accomplice has no legal right to raise any grievance - But in the facts of the case, substantial justice should not be defeated on mere E technicalities - The Court, in exercise of revisional powers u/ ss. 397 and 401, can suo motu examine the correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence or order and as to regularity of any proceedings of the inferior Court. Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 114 Illustration (b) and 133 - Evidence of accomplice - Evidentiary value - Held: F Accomplice is a competent witness, but his evidence can be relied upon depending on the quality of his evidence - Usually, such evidence needs to be substantially corroborated G - Conviction on such evidence should take place only in rare and exceptional circumstances. Principle - Principle of public policy 'ex dolo ma/a non oritur action' - Applicability of 957 H 958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 14 S.C.R. A Words and Phrases: 'Public policy' - Meaning of, in the context of criminal trial. Zonal office of Delhi of the Enforcement Directorate B conducted a search at the office and residential premises of one 'S'. Respondent No. 1 was the Deputy Director incharge of the Delhi Zone at the relevant time. During the search, a Fax message (debit advice sent from Swiss Bank Corporation, Zurich, Switzerland) was seized from C the office of 'S'. 'S' lodged a complajnt with the Enforcement Directorate alleging that the Fax message from Swiss Bank Corporation was a forged document. After "enquiry 0 conducted by the Enforcement Directorate, a letter from the Swiss Bank, which was later authenticated by the Indian Embassy, confirmed that the seized Fax message was a forged document. Thereafter Enforcement Directorate lodged a E complaint and case was registered by CBI against respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 (another official of Enforcement Directorate). Respondent No. 2 confessed to have played an active role in forging the F said Fax message on the instructions of respondent No.1. Respondent No. 2, then filed an application uls. 306 Cr.P.C. for grant of pardon and becoming an approver. CBI did not object to the same. However, respondent No. 1 filed an application seeking right to oppose the G application for tendering pardon to respondent No. 2, and the same was rejected and the order was further affirmed by the High Court. Subsequently the application of respondent No. 2 seeking pardon and for making him an approver was allowed. The order was challenged by H C.8.1. v. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL 959 respondent No. 1 before High Court u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. The A trial court obtained sanction for prosecution of respondent No. 1 and it was challenged by respondent No. 1 by filing writ petition. The High Court disposed of the petition u/s. 482 quashing the order tendering pardon and remitted the matter to trial court to decide the B application afresh in the light of the charge-sheet and the relevant material. Hence the present appeal by CBI. In appeal respondent No. 1 contended that the reply to Letter Rogatory rev.ealed that the Fax message in C question was a genuine document and not a forged or fabricated one; that confessional statement of respondent No. 2 revealed that his wife had indulged in Hawala transactions with 'S' and she had been regularly visiting the commercial premises of 'S'; that in view of culpability of respondent No. 2, granting pardon is D revisable; and that if his rights are being adversely affected, he has right to be heard. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The principle of public policy is: ex dolo ma/o non oritur action. No court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own stating or otherwise, E F the cause of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.