9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (11) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 supervised 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. Chadda and were passed on to certain businessmen 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 offence was committed under the Prevention of Corruption A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings before the magistrate were only under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act and s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Mehra could not be examined as an approver and in consequence the case could not be committed to the Court of Session but should be disposed of by the magistrate himself. The magistrate held that Mehra could be treated as an approver and proceedings before him were therefore in the nature of commitment proceedings. Thereupon there was a revision to the Sessions Judge who took the view that as the proceedings before the magistrate were under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and as no pardon could be tendered under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for these offences, Mehra could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mere perusal of s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shows that the view of the High Court is correct. Section 337(1) provides for tender of a pardon in respect of the following offences, namely- (i) Any offence triable exclusively by the High Court or Court of Session ; (ii) Any offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years; (iii) Any offence under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code: 161, 165, 165-A, 216-A, 369, 401, 435 and 477-A. Thus pardon can only be tendered with respect to an offence which falls in one of these categories. It is not disputed that an offence under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120- B of the Indian Penal Code does not fall within any of these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty in connection with the same matter. It is said that the specific provision for trial for any other offence which might have been committed in connection with the same matter in s. 339 shows that the pardon would cover the other offence also even though it may not be an offence for which the pardon was and could be tendered. We are of opinion that no such inference could be drawn from the use of these words in s. 339, for that section deals with a different contingency altogether, namely, whether the conditions of the pardon had been complied with. It is to be remembered that a pardon- -tendered under s. 337 is a protection from prosecution. Failure to comply with the conditions on which the pardon is tendered removes that protection. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Indian Penal Code does not fall within any of these categories no pardon can be tendered with respect to that offence. Therefore, Mehra to whom pardon has been tendered, could not be examined as an approver in the proceedings which are concerned ,only with an offence under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to three cases in support of the view that a pardon under s. 337(1) could be tendered not only for the offences of the kind enumerated therein but also other offences which might be committed in the course of the commission of the offences enumerated therein but which might not be within the terms of s. 337(1). These cases are: Queen- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection with the matter giving rise to the offence for which pardon was tendered. These three cases really turn on the question whether the accused had complied with the conditions upon which the pardon was tendered to him and it was held that be had so complied. In those circumstances, the trial under s. 339 was held to be bad. We are not concerned in the present case with s. 339. What we have to decide is whether a pardon under S. 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be granted in the case of an offence under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. To that there can be only one answer on the terms of s. 337(1), namely, that no pardon can be granted for an offence of this nature. Therefore, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
