NARENDRA G GOEL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 10th January, 2006 by which pardon was tendered by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, to the respondent no.2 herein; and the order dated 22nd September, 2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in C.C.No.525/PW/2005, by which the application of the petitioner seeking compliance of the order dated 15th February, 2013 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.1309 of 2012, was dismissed. According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate in compliance with the order dated 15th February, 2013, ought to have taken fresh cognizance, by giving the petitioner, an opportunity of being heard, on the application for grant of pardon to the main accused (respondent no.2 herein).

(2.) At the outset, we may note a few facts as are necessary for deciding the present petition;

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has impugned the orders dated 10th January, 2006 and 22nd September, 2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. He contended that the order dated 10th January, 2006 granting tender of pardon to the respondent no.2, who is the main accused was improper, cryptic and illegal and was thus liable to be set aside. He submitted that the charge-sheet in the said case was filed on 28th December, 2005 and on the same day cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and the case was adjourned to 19th January, 2006 for committal of the case, to the Court of Sessions. According to him, without informing the accused persons including the petitioner, the Special Public Prosecutor on 9th January, 2006 moved an application before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, for grant of pardon to the respondent no.2 herein, which was allowed vide order dated 10th January, 2006. The learned counsel contended that neither the accused nor the learned Magistrate, were informed of the role of the respondent no.2 and as such the order granting pardon was passed by the learned Magistrate, without application of mind. He submitted that the petitioner had a right to he be heard, before pardon was granted to the respondent no.2, more particularly, when respondent no.2 was the main accused. He submitted that the order granting pardon is not a reasoned order and that the condition stipulated in section 306 has not been complied with. He relied on certain Judgments in support of his submissions. He also submitted that pursuant to the order dated 15th February, 2013, passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.1309 of 2012, the learned Magistrate ought to have taken fresh cognizance, by giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard on the application seeking grant of pardon to respondent no.2 herein