P.C. MISHRA versus STATE (C.B.I.) & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 183 · Decided: 27-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 183 
P.C. MISHRA 
v. 
STATE (C.B.I.) & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1310 of 2010) 
MARCH 27, 2014 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
A 
B 
s. 306 r/w s. 460 (g) - Power of Magistrate to grant pardon c 
to accomplice during investigation before submission of 
charge-sheet - Held: During investigation, both, Special 
Judge as well as the Magistrate acting u/s 306, have 
concurrent jurisdiction to entertain application of pardon, which 
facilitates proper investigation of crime - In a case, where 
0 
Magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction u/s 306 even after 
appointment of a Special Judge under PC Act and has 
passed an order granting pardon, the same is only a curable 
irregularity, in terms of s. 460 (g) Cr.P. C., which will not vitiate 
the proceedings, provided the order is passed in good faith -
E 
However, after committal of the case, pardon granted by 
Magistrate is not a curable irregularity - In the instant case, 
there is no error in Special Judge directing the Magistrate to 
pass appropriate orders on the application of CBI in granting 
pardon to second respondent so as to facilitate the 
investigation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - s. 337. 
F 
The instant appeal arose out of the order dated 
2.11.1996 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate granting 
pardon to the second respondent in a case uls 7 of the 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) against him 
G 
and the main accused, namely, the appellant. The said 
order attained finality. Later, charges were framed ulss 7 
and 13(1)(d) read with s. 13(2) of the PC Act against the 
appellant by order dated 8.2.2000. During the trial in the 
183 
H 
184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A Court of Special Judge when evidence had been 
concluded as against the appellant and the second 
respondent had been examined as PW9 by the 
prosecution and cross-examined by the appellant, the 
latter moved an application under the proviso to s. 234 
B Cr.P.C. before the Special Judge on 24.7.2008, 
questioning the pardon granted to second respondent by 
the Metropolitan Magistrate on 2.11.1996. The Special 
Judge rejected the application. The High Court dismissed 
the appellant's revision petition. 
c 
In the instant appeal, the issue that arose for 
consideration before the Court was the correctness of the 
order passed by the Magistrate in granting pardon, 
exercising powers u/s 306 Cr.P.C. during the course of 
investigation of the case and before the submission of 
D the charge-sheet before the Special Judge. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The power to grant pardon enjoined u/s 
E 306 Cr.P.C. is a substantial power and the reasons for 
tendering pardon must be recorded. It is for the 
prosecution to ask that a particular accused, out of 
several, may be granted pardon, if it thinks that it is 
necessary in the interest of successful prosecution of 
other offenders or else the conviction of those offenders 
F would not be easy. [para 11) [193-F-G] 
Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration 1958 SCR 1218 
=AIR 1958 SC 350 and State of U.P. v. Kai/ash Nath Agarwal 
and others 1973 (3) SCR 728 = (1973) 1 sec 751 -- relied 
G on. 
A. Devendran v. State of Tamil Nadu 1997 (4) Suppl. 
SCR 591 = (1997) 11 sec 720 - referred to. 
1.2 During investigation, both the Special Judge as 
H 
P.C. MISHRA v. STATE (C.B.I.) & ANR. 
185 
well as the Magistrate acting u/s 306 Cr.P.C. have 
A 
concurrent jurisdiction to entertain application of pardon, 
which facilitates proper investigation of the crime. But, 
after the committal of the case, the pardon granted by the 
Magistrate is not a curable irregularity. [para 14] [195-E-F] 
B 
Bangaru Laxman v. State (through CBI) and another 
2011 (13) SCR 268 = (2012) 1 SCC 500 - referred to. 
1.3 In a case, where the Magistrate has exercised his 
jurisdiction u/s 306 Cr.P.C. even after the appointment of 
a Special Judge under the PC Act and has passed an 
C 
order granting pardon, the same is only a curable 
irregularity, in terms of s. 460 (g) Cr.P.C., which will not 
vitiate the proceedings, provided the order is passed in 
good faith. In fact, in the instant case, the Special Judge 
himself has referred the application to Chief Metropolitan o 
Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrate to deal with the same 
since the case was under investigation. [para 15 - 16] 
[195-H; 196-D-E] 
1.4 In the circumstances, there is no error in Special 
Judge directing the Chief Me

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.