9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (2) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. Their appeals to the Punjab High Court were dismissed and the present appeals are by special leave. 3. The case of the prosecution, as stated in the charge, was that the appellants had conspired at Delhi with Ram Saran Das, the approver, M.P. Khare, Nand Parkash Kapur and Murari between the 6th and 16th of November, 1955, to bring about the escape from lawful custody of M.P. Khare, an undertrial prisoner, and that they had also agreed to accept ₹ 1,000 each and other pecuniary advantages as illegal gratification for rendering the escape of M.P. Khare from lawful custody and that in pursuance of the said conspiracy they had abetted the escape of M.P. Khare and that they had a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of s. 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Points 3, 4 and 5 may be disposed of at the outset. We have examined the evidence of Mela Ram and Shiv Parshad and find nothing in their evidence which establishes them as accomplices. It does not appear that before the High Court it had ever been urged that these witnesses were accomplices and their evidence could not be taken into consideration to corroborate the approver. It was, however, urged that these witnesses were unreliable because they had knowledge that an attempt would be made to enable M.P. Khare to escape from lawful custody and yet they informed no authority about it. As to the reliability of these witnesses the courts below were entitled to believe them and nothing of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by the Advocate for the accused when the Special Judge told him that if it was his contention that the accused had been prejudiced by this form of the charge, he would frame separate charges under separate heads and then proceed with the trial. Furthermore, when the charge was framed, the public prosecutor had urged that charges under separate heads for each offence should be framed and that they should not be joined together under one head. The Advocate for the accused, however, had urged that the charge, as framed, was correct. It seems to us that when the charge was being framed the Advocate for the appellants desired that the charge as framed should stand and the public prosecutor's objection should be overruled. It cannot be no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Act, 1947, are affirmed. 9. Coming now to the first point urged on behalf of the appellants, it would appear that the District Magistrate of Delhi granted a pardon under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Ram Saran Das, the approver, in consequence of which Ram Saran Das was examined as a witness by the Special Judge. It was urged that the District Magistrate could not grant a pardon when the case was triable by the Court of Special Judge constituted under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952. The offence under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. It was not an offence which was punishable with imprisonmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecial Judge and, therefore, we need not consider whether the offence was punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years. Under s. 8(3) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1952 it is expressly stated that for the purposes of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Court of Special Judge shall be deemed to be a Court of Session trying cases without a jury or without the aid of assessors. Section 9 of that Act provides for an appeal from the Court of the Special Judge to the High Court and states that the High Court may exercise, as far as they may be applicable, all the powers conferred by Chapters XXXI and XXXII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as if the Court of the Special Judge were a Court of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdon. The conferment of this power on the Special Judge in no way deprives the District Magistrate of his power to grant a pardon under s. 337 of the Code. At the date the District Magistrate tendered the pardon the case was not before the Special Judge. There seems to us, therefore, no substance in the submission made that the District Magistrate had not authority to tender a pardon to Ram Saran Das, the approver, and consequently the approver's evidence was inadmissible. 11. The findings of the High Court establish the offence of the appellants under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and we can find no sufficient reason to think that the appellants were wrongly convicted thereunder. 12. The appeals are according ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
