STATE Vs. BABULI NARAYAN BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revisions arise out of certain conflicting orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack, and the Additional District Magistrate (Executive), Cuttack, on the question of tendering pardon to an accused under Section 337, Criminal Procedure Code in the course of a sessions trial. The questions for decision on the facts of this case are these: Could the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) tender pardon to an accused during trial before the Sessions Judge? The further pointed question posed in the peculiar circumstances of this case was whether the Additional District Magistrate (Executive) could tender pardon to an accused in a case which was being tried by the learned Sessions Judge who had expressed his views against the tender of the pardon to the accused. The points arose in the circumstances stated hereunder.

(2.) SEVEN accused persons including the accused Ratnakar Prusty were being tried in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in S.T. No. 19-C of 1966 on a charge against the accused persons for having committed an offence under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) HAVING regard to the settled position of the law as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court it was open to the Additional District Magistrate in this case to grant pardon even at the stage when the case was being tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge after commitment. There is nothing in Section 337(1) or Section 388 which deprives the Additional District Magistrate of his power to grant pardon in a case which was committed to the Court of Session for trial.