STATE OF U. P. versus KAILASH NATH AGARWAL & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 728 · Decided: 16-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

728 
STATE OF U. P. 
v. 
KAILASH NATH AGARWAL & ORS. 
March 16. 1973 
[A. ALAGIIUSWAMI, I. D. DUA AND C. A, V AIDIALINOAM, JI,] 
Cr. P.C.-s. 331(1)-Whether a District Mqlstratt is competent to 
grant pardon under the section when a Firs~ Class 
Magistrate, .before 
whom the enquiry proceedings wert pending, had rejected such a request. 
Respondent entered into a conspiracy as a result of which they de-
frauded the railway administration during the year 1958-59, very large 
amounts. A char~heet was filed against them under s. 120(B), 420, 
467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. 
The enquiry proceedings were started in the court of the 1st Class 
Magistrate, Kanpur. 
The 2nd and 3rd respondents gave confessional 
statements and both of them made applicatiom& under s. 337 of Cr.P.C .. 
praying for grant of pardon. The Magistrate passed an order declining 
to grant pardon and rejected the applications. However, on behalf of 
the State, an application was lied before the District Ma,istrate, Kanpur, 
to grant pardon to ·reapondcnt 2 and 3 on c:ondition of their making a 
full disclosure of the whole caae. In the application, reference was made 
to the 'fact that a requeat made by tbele two acctJied for arant of pll'don 
was rejected by the Magistrate enquiring into the oft'ence. 
The applica· 
tion was oppoeed by re~pclf3deata No, 1 IDd 4 te 6 on the JfOUDd that the 
District · MQistrate had no power to grant pardon when the enqulrina 
Magistrate liad declined a limilar requat. The Diatrict Magiatrate r&o 
jected this contention and lfl!lted pardon to the 2nd: rapondent on con· 
dition of hiJ making a full dilcloeure of the whole case. 
The first responlleqt filed a criminal revi&ioo before 
the Diatrlet 
Judge K~J,npur, challenging this order. Ultimately it was heard bv a Civil 
and Sessions Judge, Kanpur.· It wu held that the District ·Magistrate 
was not competent to grant pardon to respondent No. 2. The Civil and 
Sessions Judge 'further held that the order of the Diatrict Magistrate was 
wholly without jurisdiction and therefore, referred the. matter to the Hiah 
Court with a recommendation that the order of the District Magistrate 
granting pardon to the second resl.'ondent should be quashed. The High 
Court held that the District MagiStrate ~d no power to grant pardon 
after it had been once refused by the 1st Class Magistrate enquiring into 
the matter and that the order of the Diatrict Magistrate was revisable by 
the Civil and Sessions Judge and quashed the order of the District Magis-
trate, Kanpur. The question was whether the District Magistrate 
is 
competent under s. 337(1) of the Cr.P.C. tc, grant pardon to an accused 
when a 1st Class Magistrate before whom the enquiry proceedings had 
been pending had rejected such a request. 
Partly allowing the appeal, 
HELD: (i) A perusal of s. 337(1) shows that the District Magistrate, 
a Presidency Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any Magistrate 
of the First Class may tender pardon in the clrc;umstances mentioned 
therein at any stage of the investigation or enquiry into or trial of the 
offence. 
But under the proviso if the offence is under enquiry or trial, 
only the District Magistrate and only the Magistrate making the enquiry 
or holding the trial, can exercise the power. Similarly where the offence 
A 
B 
c 
D 
G 
H 
··*· 
A 
B 
c 
D 
··~ 
G 
H 
U.P. STATB v. K. N. AGARWAL (Vaidialingam, /.) 
729 
is under investigation, it is only a Magistrate having jurisdiction in 
the 
place where the offence might be enquired into or tried that can exercise 
the power. Even such a Magistrate can exercise that power only if the 
sanction of the District Magistrate has been obtained. 
While there is 
a restriction on the powers of the Magistrate of the First Class, 
no 
such restriction is to be found in the proviso on the powers of the District 
Magistrate either at the stage of investigation or enquiry into or trial of 
the offence. Emphasis is to be laid on the fact that the proviso to 
s. 337 which contemplates concurrent jurisdiction in the District Magis· 
trate and in the Magistrate making an enquiry or holding the trial 
to 
tender pardons. The mere fact that a Magistrate of the first class enquir-
ing into an offence has declined to grant pardon, as in the present case, 
does not take away the power or jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to 
entert.ain a fl.!fther apP.licati?n for ~t of pardo!l· 
However, judicial 
propnety reqwres that 1f a higher authonty had de

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