2013 (11) TMI 1810 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of pardon u/s 306 CrPC.
2. Role of the court in granting pardon.
3. Rights of co-accused to oppose pardon.
4. Relevance of evidence and public policy in granting pardon.
5. Revisional powers of the High Court.

Summary:

1. Grant of Pardon u/s 306 CrPC:
The appeal challenges the High Court's decision to set aside the Special Judge's order granting pardon to Respondent No. 2 u/s 306 CrPC and making him an approver. The case originated from a complaint alleging that forged documents were planted during a search by the Enforcement Directorate, implicating Respondent No. 1.

2. Role of the Court in Granting Pardon:
The Supreme Court emphasized that granting pardon is a judicial act and the court must consider the consequences, including the policy of the State and the relative culpability of the accused. The court should not act mechanically and must ensure that the pardon serves the interest of justice. The court's discretion cannot be marginalized by the prosecution's support for the pardon.

3. Rights of Co-Accused to Oppose Pardon:
The court clarified that the co-accused does not have a right to be heard before any forum regarding the grant of pardon. However, the High Court can exercise suo motu revisional powers to ensure justice is done according to recognized principles of criminal jurisprudence.

4. Relevance of Evidence and Public Policy in Granting Pardon:
The court must consider all relevant facts, including the nature of the evidence and the public policy implications. The evidence provided by an accomplice should be scrutinized with caution and requires substantial corroboration. The court also noted that documents sent by foreign authorities in response to a Letter Rogatory are considered evidence collected during the investigation.

5. Revisional Powers of the High Court:
The High Court has the authority to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any order or proceeding of the inferior court. The revisional powers can be exercised suo motu to ensure justice, even if the litigant does not have a legal right to raise the grievance.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to remit the matter to the Special Judge for reconsideration. The court emphasized that substantial justice should not be defeated on mere technicalities and that the Special Judge must consider all relevant facts and legal principles while deciding the application for pardon afresh.