2020 (5) TMI 562 - HC - Money Laundering

Revocation of pardon - Section 308 of Cr.P.C - HELD THAT - The application contains detailed allegations, on facts, to highlight that the respondent has misused the pardon, extended to him, and has not made a full and true disclosure of the information known to him, or the documents, over which he has control. Prima facie, it is not necessary to enter into the said details, as the learned trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner on a preliminary ground, without examining it on merits. Resultantly, a pure question of law, relating to the circumstances in which revocation of pardon, under Section 308 Cr.P.C can be granted, and the conditions precedent therefor, arises for consideration. Issue Notice - List this matter for final disposal on 3rd June, 2020.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of pardon under Section 308 of Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order of a Special Judge regarding the revocation of pardon granted to the respondent. The Enforcement Directorate sought revocation of the pardon extended to the respondent on the grounds of non-cooperation, failure to provide documents, and contact with co-accused. The trial court dismissed the application without examining it on merits, citing the need for the approver to be examined before revocation. The key legal issue is whether revocation of pardon can be granted before the approver is examined in court, as per Section 308 of Cr.P.C.

The judgment highlights the legal position that once an accused is granted pardon and made an approver, failure to comply with the conditions of the pardon can lead to the accused being tried as an accused again, subject to the provisions of Section 308 of Cr.P.C. It emphasizes the importance of following the procedure laid down in the law, which mandates the examination of the approver in court before revoking the pardon. The judgment clarifies that revocation of pardon cannot be done prematurely and requires the approver to be examined, and the Public Prosecutor to certify any breach of conditions before revocation can be considered.

The petitioner argued that the trial court's reliance on the State v. Jagjit Singh judgment was incorrect, as it had been clarified in a subsequent judgment, State of Maharashtra v. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari. The petitioner contended that the trial court's interpretation was flawed, and a pure question of law regarding the conditions for revocation of pardon under Section 308 of Cr.P.C needed consideration. The court accepted the petitioner's contentions and issued notice to the respondent, setting the matter for final disposal to determine the legal validity of the revocation of pardon and the conditions precedent for such revocation.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the procedural and legal intricacies surrounding the revocation of pardon under Section 308 of Cr.P.C. It underscores the importance of following due process and the prescribed legal procedure before revoking a pardon granted to an accused turned approver. The court's decision to examine the legal question of revocation before the approver's examination signifies the significance of procedural fairness and adherence to statutory provisions in criminal proceedings.