LexTHE STATE versus HIRALAL G. KOTHARI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 355 THE STATE 'I.'. HIRALAL G. KOTHARI AND OTHERS (JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Criminal Law-Pardon-Conspiracy and ·allied offences- Tender of pardon of approver for main offence-Separate trial of other acciised for subsidiary offence-Examination of approver as such for subsidiary offence-Legality-Code of Criminal Procedure, z898, (Act V of z898), ss. 339, 377(z). On March 9, 1956, a conspiracy to .divulge the budget proposals on receiving valuable consideration was discovered and a case was registered under s. l65A of the Indian Penal Code, s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and s. l20B of the Indian Penal Code .. Investigation started on March IO, 1956, and thereafter pardon ·was tendered to M by the Additional District Magistrate under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Owing to technical legal difficulties a complaint under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. l20B of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the persons involved and proceedings began before a magistrate on this complaint. In the course of these proceedings the prosecu- tion wanted to examine M as an approver, but the accused persons objected that as the proceedings before the .magistrate were only under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and as no pardon .could be tendered under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for these offences, M could not be treated as an approver but could be examined only as an ordinary witness. It was contended for the prosecution that as the person to whom pardon was tendered was expected to tell the whole truth including details of other subsidiary offences committed in the course of the commission of the offence for which pardon was tendered, such pardon must be held to include the subsidiary offences though not of the nature mentioned in s. 377(1), and therefore M could be con~idered as an approver in the present proceedings. Held, that a pardon under s. 377(1) of the Code of' Criminal Procedure could be tendered only with respect to the offences mentioned therein and that as s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code was not covered by the words of s. 337(1) no pardon could be granted for an offence of this nature. Consequently, as the proceedings before the magis- trate were only with respect to these offences, M could not be treated as an approver for the purpose of these proceedings. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISD'ICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 25 to 27 of 1958. I959 November 30. ·:l 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960 (2)] r959 Appeals from the judgment and order dated June 25, The State 1957, of the Punjab High Opurt, in Criminal Revisions v. Nos. 184-D, 185-D and 186-D of 1956, arising out of Hiralal G. Kotha'i the judgment and order dated October 23, 1956, of the and Othm Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Criminal· Revision Applic- ations Nos. 249, 250 and 251 of 1956. Bipin Behai·i Lal and R. H. Dhebar, for the appel- lant. G. 0. Mathur and J. N. Shroff, for the respondent in Cr. A. No. 25 of 1958. A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent in Cr. A. No. 26of1958. . Respondent in Cr. A. No. 27 of 1959 did not appear. 1959. November 30. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo J. WANOHOO J.-These three appeals arise out of three certificates granted by the Punjab High Court in a criminal matter. They will be dealt with together as the point raised in them is common. The brief facts necessary for the purpose are these : There is a Government Printing Press at Rashtrapati Bhavan known as Rashtrapati Bhavan Printing Press which is locatea in the President's estate in New Delhi. Jacobs was the General Foreman of this Press. Every year the budget proposals are printed at this Press under the supervision of Jacobs. As usual, Jacobs super- vised the printing of budget proposals in his official capacity in February 1955 also. It appears that Jacobs entered into a conspiracy to divulge the budget proposals on receiving valuable consideration for the same. ·consequently the proposals were divulged to D. P. Ohadda and were passed on to certain business- men of Bombay, including Nandlal More and Hiralal G. Kothari through one A. L. Mehra. All this was done against the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, No. XIX of 1923. Further an offe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.