9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Special Court to grant pardon prior to the filing of the charge sheet. 2. Interpretation of Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Summary: Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Special Court to Grant Pardon Prior to the Filing of the Charge Sheet The main argument by the appellant was that the Special Court has no jurisdiction to grant pardon before the filing of the charge sheet. The appellant contended that the power to grant pardon is not inherent and must be specifically conferred, arguing that the Special Judge under the P.C. Act cannot exercise this power u/s 306 of the Code. The appellant relied on several decisions, including Lt. Commander Pascal Fernandes v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Anr., to support the contention that pardon should be granted only after the commencement of the trial. The Court, however, held that u/s 5(2) of the P.C. Act, the power of the Special Judge to grant pardon is unfettered and can be exercised at any stage. The deeming clause in Section 5(2) is for a limited purpose, specifically for the purposes of Sub-sections (1) to (5) of Section 308 of the Code, which deals with the trial of a person not complying with the conditions of pardon. The Court emphasized that the power to grant pardon is not restricted to the trial stage and can be exercised during the investigation. Issue 2: Interpretation of Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 The Court examined the provisions of Sections 306 and 307 of the Code and Section 5(2) of the P.C. Act. It was noted that Section 306(2)(a) makes Section 306 applicable to the Court of Special Judge under the P.C. Act. The Court referred to the decision in Harshad S. Mehta and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, which held that a Special Court is a court of original criminal jurisdiction and enjoys all the powers of such a court under the Code, including those of Sections 306 to 308. The Court concluded that the Special Judge under the P.C. Act has the dual power of a Session Judge and a Magistrate, and thus, can grant pardon at any stage, including prior to the filing of the charge sheet. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of preventing failure of justice by allowing the offender to escape from a lack of evidence. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Special Judge has the jurisdiction to grant pardon prior to the filing of the charge sheet. The Court directed that the Special Judge conducting the trial will independently apply his mind to the facts of the case, uninfluenced by the order granting pardon.
|
