1973 (3) TMI 148 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the District Magistrate to grant pardon under Section 337(1) of the CrPC.
2. Competency of the revision filed by the first respondent against the District Magistrate's order.
3. Whether the grant of pardon by the District Magistrate is an irregularity cured by Section 529(g) of the CrPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competency of the District Magistrate to Grant Pardon:
The primary issue was whether a District Magistrate is competent under Section 337(1) of the CrPC to grant pardon to an accused when a First Class Magistrate had already rejected such a request. The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of Sections 337 and 338 of the CrPC. Section 337(1) allows various Magistrates, including the District Magistrate, to tender pardon at any stage of the investigation, inquiry, or trial. The proviso restricts this power for First Class Magistrates but not for the District Magistrate. The Court held that the powers conferred by Section 337 on different classes of Magistrates are concurrent and of the same character. Therefore, the District Magistrate retains the power to grant pardon even if the First Class Magistrate has refused. Judicial propriety, however, requires that a lower authority should not grant pardon if a higher authority has refused, except on fresh facts.

2. Competency of the Revision Filed by the First Respondent:
The second issue was whether the revision filed by the first respondent against the District Magistrate's order was competent. The Court referred to Section 435 of the CrPC, which allows the High Court, Sessions Judge, and District Magistrate to call for records of inferior courts to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any order. The Court concluded that an order granting pardon is an order recorded or passed and is subject to revision. Therefore, the revision filed by the first respondent was competent.

3. Whether the Grant of Pardon by the District Magistrate is an Irregularity Cured by Section 529(g):
The third issue was whether the grant of pardon by the District Magistrate constitutes an irregularity cured by Section 529(g) of the CrPC. The Court referred to the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeshwara Rao, which held that a pardon granted bona fide is protected by Section 529. However, since the Court found the District Magistrate's order to be legal and valid, it was unnecessary to rely on Section 529(g).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment that the District Magistrate's grant of pardon was illegal. The order dated June 1, 1966, by the District Magistrate, Kanpur, was restored.