SUO MOTU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is it mandatory to examine an accused who was tendered pardon under Sec. 306(4)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973? What is the effect of failure to examine an approver prior to the committal in a sessions case? These are the questions which require an answer in this suo motu revision petition. Incidentally, from the contentions advanced by one of the learned counsel, the question of whether the order of committal being an interlocutory order can be interfered with under the suo motu revisional power of the High Court also arises for consideration.

(2.) The aforementioned questions arise in five cases under S.C. No.426/2011, S.C. No.619/2011, S.C. No.67/2012, S.C. No.665/2012 and S.C. No.413/2016 on the files of the Sessions Court, Palakkad.

(3.) Prosecution alleged that pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched between accused 1 to 11, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked one Tilakan on 26/7/2005, who succumbed to the injuries. Prosecution further alleged that the first accused and second accused had nurtured a business rivalry and conspired with and hired the other accused to execute their plan. The deceased died on 31/7/2005 while undergoing treatment, and the accused hereby committed the offences alleged.