V SEETHARAMAN Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application which purports to be under S. 491 of the Criminal P.C. and Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is one Seetharaman who has been arrayed as accused No. 6 in Criminal Case No. 9023 of 1966 on the file of the City Magistrate, Bangalore. We are informed that the said case is still in the preliminary stages of the enquiry before the learned Magistrate. According to the charge-sheet, the allegations against the present petitioner are as follows :

(2.) 4508 counterfeit ten rupee currency notes are stated to have been brought to Bangalore on 9th August 1965 by the person who is the first accused in the said Criminal Case before the City Magistrate, Bangalore. They were seized by the Bangalore City Police on 22.02.1966. The investigation, consequent on the said seizure of those counterfeit notes, has resulted in the charge-sheet being placed before the City Magistrate, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 9023 of 1966.

(3.) It is undisputed that even before the charge-sheet was placed in the Dindigul Sessions Case, the present petitioner had been tendered a pardon under the provisions of S. 387 of the Criminal P.C., and was treated as an approver. He was examined as P. W. 9 by the said Sessions Judge at Dindigul. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has stated towards the end of his judgment that approver Seetharaman had complied with the conditions of pardon and he directed that Seetharaman be released. The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the pardon continues to be operative and that in the facts a and circumstances of the case, there is a legal bar to the petitioner being prosecuted for the offences alleged against him in the charge-sheet in the criminal case. The very last date on which the petitioner had anything to do with the blocks for the manufacture of counterfeit currency notes and the proof of a counterfeit ten rupee currency note was on 15-2-1966. It is not even alleged in the present criminal case before the City Magistrate, Bangalore, that the petitioner had in any way participated in any criminal act pertaining to the preparation of any blocks or manufacture of counterfeit currency notes or the uttering of the same subsequent to 15th February, 1966. As already stated, the pardon was tendered to the petitioner and accepted by him, subsequent to 15th February, 1966; that is, the pardon was tendered and accepted on 8-6-1966 (as can be seen from para 25 of the judgment of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindigul, read together with the list of exhibits appended to that judgment). The fact of the present petitioner having prepared a completed block for the manufacture of counterfeit ten rupee currency notes, his having been in possession of a proof of a ten rupee currency note printed out of that block, and the fact of his having prepared also an incomplete block for the manufacture of counterfeit ten rupee currency notes, were all matters which had been disclosed in the coarse of the investigation which resulted in the trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Dindigul. The extent to which the petitioner had participated in the conspiracy to prepare the said blocks and the counterfeit currency notes for the purpose of putting such currency notes into circulation, had all become known in the course of the said investigation. It was after a full and complete disclosure of all the materials within his knowledge, that the petitioner had been tendered a pardon which was accepted by the petitioner. There is not even an allegation in the criminal case before the learned City Magistrate, that the petitioner had not either complied with the conditions of the pardon or had not made a full and complete disclosure of all the facts which were within his knowledge. It may also be stated that there is no certificate by the Public Prosecutor as required under S. 339 of Criminal P.C. In these circumstances, it seems to us, that the contention of Mr. Ramachandra Rao that the pardon which had been tendered to the petitioner and had been accepted by him, continues to be operative and that, therefore, there is a legal bar to the petitioner being prosecuted for any offence for which he could have been prosecuted before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Dindigul, but for the grant and acceptance of the pardon. The learned State Public Prosecutor did not dispute the proposition that as regards any offence in respect of which there is an effective pardon, there cannot be a prosecution of the person protested by the pardon. But, what he tried to suggest was that the petitioner may not have disclosed the fact of these 4508 ten rupee counterfeit currency notes having been printed out of the block which had been prepared by the petitioner. He also sought to contend that the offences against the petitioner as stated in the charge-sheet, are distinct and separate from the offences which were the subject matter of the Dindigul Sessions Case. We do not think that there is any strength in these submissions made by the learned State Public Prosecutor. As already indicated, there is no allegation in the charge-sheet that after 15-2-1966, the petitioner had in any way participated in any criminal act whether by way of manufacture of blocks or manufacture of the counterfeit currency notes or uttering of such notes. Even in the records pertaining to the investigation, there is no material to indicate any such participation; (we say so on the basis of the statement made by the learned State Public Prosecutor to the effect that there is no such material in the said records). There is not even an allegation that the petitioner had any knowledge of the existence of these 4508 ten rupee counterfeit currency notes or that he had concealed such knowledge. We find no force in the contention that the charges in the charge-sheet against the petitioner are distinct and separate from those offences which were the subject-matter of the trial in the Dindigul Sessions Case and in respect of which the petitioner had been granted a pardon. In these circumstances, merely because these 4508 counterfeit currency notes had escaped detection in the course of the investigation by the Dindigul Police and were seized by the Bangalore Police on 22-2-1966, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the protection which is available to him under the pardon which had been tendered to him and had been accepted by him on 8-6-1966.