AGASTIN CHINNAPPAA ALIAS CHINNATHAMBI PILLAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner in this revision case filed Crl. M.P. No. 822 of 1978 to tender pardon to him and examine him as a witness for the prosecution. The Special Police Establishment, Madras has also taken out an application before the Special Judge, Madurai in Crl.M.P. No. 886 of 1978 to tender pardon to the petitioner (2nd accused) and examine him as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. In short, the petitioner and the prosecution, both filed two petitions to take the petitioner as one of the prosecution witnesses after tendering him pardon and examine him on behalf of the prosecution, even though he figured as one of the accused persons. IT further appears from the facts of the case that there were five accused. A-1 was the Agent of the State Bank, Uthama-palayam. One Kudbuddin was the Head Clerk of the bank, A-3 was the village Kar-nam of Kombai village and A-4 was the son of A-2. IT is brought out from the facts that during July, 1972 to July, 1973, A-2 to A-5 have alleged to have entered into a conspiracy at Uthamapalayam and other places by agreeing themselves to commit certain illegal acts and offences, to defraud the State Bank of India of it funds in the matter of sanction of agricultural loans and have thus committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the funds belonging to the bank by dishonest and fraudulent means. IT is further found from the case that A-1 has obtained a bribe of Rs. 60,000 and the Head Clerk has obtained a bribe of about Rs. 6,000 and the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No.882 of 1978 is said to have obtained a bribe of Rs. 70,000 and other persons have also obtained bribes. Under these circumstances, the State prosecuted the petitioner and other accused under section 120-B read with sections 420, 409 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 5 (2) read with section 5(1) (a) (c) land (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. At this stage, the prosecution thought of obtaining pardon with respect to A-2 and so filed Cr.M.P. No. 886 of 1978 before the Special Judge, Madurai, to tender him pardon. Similarly, the petitioner (A-2) who figured as the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 822 of 1978 also filed a petition praying to tender pardon to him so that he may turn as an approver on behalf of the prosecution.

(2.) THE petitioner need not have filed any petition at all when the State has filed a petition to take the petitioner as an approver. However, both these petitioners came up before the Special Judge and the learned Special Judge observed that if the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 822 of 1978 is willing to pay the actual amount alleged to have been misappropriated by him, then his bona fides for tendering pardon will be considered. THE learned Special Judge further observed that the application filed by the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 822 of 1978 is belated and does not appear to be bona fide, and that it was filed to serve his selfish ends. It is with those observations, both the Crl. M.P. Nos. 822 and 886 of 1978 were dismissed. It is against this dismissal order, the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 822 of 1978 has filed the above revision case.

(3.) IT is very clear from the facts of the case that the petitioner along with the others have cheated the State Bank and the were charged under sections 120-B, 420, 409 and 161, Indian Penal Code and under section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (a) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act Act, 1947. When once the State comes for-ward with a petition before Court asking the Court to tender pardon with respect to a particular accused, so that if he would turn as an approver it would be helpful to the prosecution to prove substantially the charge levelled against the ether accused it is duty of Court to see the veracity and also to tender pardon so that the accused, pardoned, may turn as an approver. Put, on the other hand, the learned Special Judge instead oil considering that aspect has observed that if the petitioner is willing to pay the actual amount misappropriated and shows his bona fides, then only pardon will be granted.: Such an observation by the learned Special Judge is uncalled for and is irregular.