INDRAKUMARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER /first accused in C.C.3 of 1998 on the file of learned XIII Additional Judge/Special Judge III, Chennai, has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 502/99 dated 25.5.99.

(2.) THE case in brief for the disposal of the revision is as follows:

(3.) THE respondent filed counter, stating that final report has been filed against the petitioner and others for offences punishable under sections 120 -B, 409, 409 read with 109. 466, 467, 475 and 506(i) IPC and section 13(2) read with 13(l)(d) of P.C. Act, of 1988. During the course of investigation, the prosecution filed an application before the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chennai to record the statement of Thiru S. Jagadeesan under section 164 Cr.P.C. and to treat him as an approver in the above case. The Special Judge in his letter dated 9.8.96 directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Egmore to nominate a Magistrate to record the statement of said Jagadeesan under section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate. George Town was directed to record the statement and after observing the required legal formalities and ascertaining that the statement was given voluntarily and without any compulsion. The learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate after satisfying himself, recorded the statement on 23.8.96. Subsequently, he was produced before the III Metropolitan Magistrate. George Town on 9.10.96 and was accorded conditional tender of pardon as per section 306 Cr.P.C. Section 306(1) Cr.P.C. empowers the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate to grant tender of pardon at any person to any stage of enquiry or trial. Subsection 2 of section 306 Cr.P.C. lays down that this section applies to any offence triable by the Court of Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. After the P.C. Act 1988 came into force, section 5 of the Act, gives power to accord tender of pardon on condition of his making a full and true disclosure. This power given to a Special Judge does not take away the power given to a Magistrate under section 306 Cr.P.C. but it is co -extensive to the power of a Magistrate. The question regarding the concurrent powers of a Magistrate and the Special Judge to tender pardon was discussed in Kashinath Krishnasapet vs. The State of Mysore reported in, 1963 Crl.L.J. 597. It was held that the Magistrate has got powers to tender pardon if the particular case was not before a Special Judge.