J M PHADTARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is preferred against the decision give by the learned Special Judge, Pune, below application Ex. 128 in Special Case No. 10 of 1978. A few facts may be stated :

(2.) The allegation of the prosecution pertains to October 1973 and broadly speaking it is averred that a number of accused persons entered into a conspiracy and misappropriated certain bran bags. Charges accordingly are under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 468 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Pune, on 10th July, 1978 and on 12th September, 1980 as many as 36 charges were framed by the said Special Judge. It may be mentioned that out of these charges accused No. 13 who was ultimately granted conditional pardon and which order is impugned before me, figures in charges 2, 3, 4, 6, 14, 15, 23, 28, & 29 and 35. It would appear that he is a common factor to the several charges as he was the common Secretary to several co-operative societies.

(3.) 16th March, 1981 was the day fixed for the commencement of the trial and on that day accused No. 1 made an application that he should be granted conditional pardon and offered to make full and true disclosure. This, however, was opposed on behalf of the State and an order was passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting the application. The trial thereafter commenced properly speaking on the 17th of March, 1981 and by 24th March as many as fifteen witnesses had been examined. On 24th March, 1981 accused No. 13 Khilare made an application for grant of conditional pardon. It is this application which was numbered as Exh. 128. The impugned order states that the application was under section 8(2) of Criminal Law Amendment Act read with section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The order further states that the A.P.P. had consented to accepting the accused as approver and giving evidence in support of the prosecution case. However, naturally the application was vehemently opposed on behalf of the other accused persons. After considering their objections the learned Special Judge has on 25th March, 1981 made the usual conditional order granting pardon to accused No. 13 on his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offences charged against him and the other accused persons. It is this order which is impugned in the present application. It may be mentioned that the proceeding before this Court ought to have been numbered as a criminal application and not a criminal revision application.