LexDILIP SUDHAKAR PENDSE & ANR. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013) 7 S.C.R. 646 DILIP SUDHAKAR PENDSE & ANR. v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 2013) JULY 16, 2013 (H.L. GOKHALE AND MADAN B.LOKUR, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 306(5)(b) - Tender of pardon to accomplice and committal of case to Court of Session - Offences punishabfe ulss 420, 468, 471 and 477-A read with s. 120-8 /PC - Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate granting pardon to one of accused on his turning approver, and committing the 0 case to Court of Session - Held: Charges leveled against appellants are all triable by Magistrate's Court, and cognizance is taken by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and not by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - Further, it was also not an offence triable by Special Judge under Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 - It was, thus, a case E falling in the category of 'any other case' under sub-s. (5)(b) of s. 306 CrPC and had to be made over to Chief metropolitan Magistrate for trial - Order of High Court directing the case to be tried by Court of Session is set aside - Proceedings will F stand restored to file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who shall proceed with trial - As regards cancellation of order granting pardon, it would be for appellants to apply before the Magistrate concerned. A charge-sheet against the appellants and others for G offences punishable u/ss 420, 468, 471 and 477-A read with s.120-B IPC, was filed in the Court of Addi. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. One of the accused turned approver and the ·Magistrate by order dated 10.9.2008, granted him pardon and committed the case to the Court H 646 DILIP SUDHAKAR PENDSE & ANR. v. CENTRAL 64 7 BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION of Session for trial. The Sessions Judge held that the A offences were not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, and sent the case to Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trial. However, the High Court, in the writ petition, directed the matter to be tried by the Court of Session. B Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the offences were triable by the Magistrate's Court and not exclusively triable by the Court of Session: and the Magistrate taking C cognizance was Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and not the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. It was also not an offence triable by the Special Judge under the Criminal law Amendment Act, 1952. That being so, it was a case falling in the category of 'any other case' under sub-s. D (5)(b) of s.306 CrPC and, therefore, had to be made over to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for trial. Therefore, the order passed by the High Court is set aside. The proceeding will now stand restored to the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who shall proceed with the trial. E [para 10, 12 and 13] [652-D-F; 653-B-D] 1.2 As regards cancellation of order granting pardon, it would be for the appellants to apply before the Magistrate and it is for him to take appropriate decision F if any such application is filed. [para 14] [653-D-E] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 966 of 2013. From the Judgment & Order dated 7. 7.2011 of the High G Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1737 of 2009. P.R. Namjoshi, Vivek Gore, Shankar Narayanan, Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellants. H 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 7 S.C.R. A Rakesh K. Khanna, Priyanka Gupta, Prakriti Purnima, H. B Prabhakar, B.V. Bairam Das, Rajiv Nanda, Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Respondents. J The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PER GOKHALE, J. Leave granted. 1. Heard Mr. P.R. Namjoshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the c respondent. 2. The appellants seek to challenge the order passed by the Bombay High Court allowing the Criminal Writ Petition filed bythe respondent-C.8.1. The C.B.I. had sought to challenge the order passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Greater Mumbai, D which had allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the appellants and set aside the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 3. lhe facts leading to this appeal are as under: E The appellants herein along with one Rajendraprasad K. Jhunjhunwala and others are being prosecuted for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 477-A read with Section 120-B of l.P.C. A charge-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.