JOSEPH KUOK Vs. CBI NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN R. C. No. DAI-1999-A-0025, under Section 420/468/471/120-B of Indian Penal code and section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption act, 1988, vide order dated 21st March 2006, learned Special Judge, CBI, had tendered pardon to accused Satish Gupta son of Late Shri S. C. Gupta under section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) PETITIONER/accused has impugned aforesaid order dated 21st March 2006 in this petition by contending that pardon ought to be granted in exceptional cases only where it is not possible to establish the guilt of the accused from the available evidence and that the statement of approver Satish Gupta is not inculpatory as required by law and there is no mention in the impugned order that the conditional pardon granted to approver Satish Gupta has been accepted by him, which is necessary requirement under Section 306 (3) of the Code of criminal Procedure. Lastly, it is urged that the pardon granted to Satish Gupta is not voluntary one and has been granted after six years and it does not serve the ends of justice and therefore, it deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been placed upon judgments reported in 1995 SCC (Crl.) 60, 1985 C. C. Cases 520 and 1974 Crl. L. J. 957, in support of the above submissions. Nothing else has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner.

(3.) ON behalf of the Respondent, it is urged that the grant of pardon to an accused cannot be questioned by co-accused as it does not affect the position of co-accused and the object of granting pardon is to obtain true evidence in grave offences so that the real offender does not escape from punishment due to lack of evidence and the pardon can be granted at any stage of the trial and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Reliance has been placed upon judgments reported in AIR 2001 SC 2734 and AIR 2000 SC 908, to contend that the sole consideration to grant pardon is that the accused should make full and free disclosure of the facts within his knowledge with regard to the offence committed and since approver - Satish Gupta has fulfilled this requirement, therefore, there is no scope for any interference with the impugned order.