TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the District Magistrate had concurrent jurisdiction under Section 337 to tender pardon after the First Class Magistrate had refused the request; (ii) whether an order granting pardon under Section 337 was revisable and the revision before the Sessions Court was competent.
Issue (i): whether the District Magistrate had concurrent jurisdiction under Section 337 to tender pardon after the First Class Magistrate had refused the request.
Analysis: Section 337 conferred power on the District Magistrate and the other named Magistrates in concurrent terms. The proviso imposed certain restrictions on Magistrates of the first class, but no corresponding restriction was placed on the District Magistrate. The scheme of the provision, read with Section 338, showed that the powers were concurrent and that a prior refusal by the enquiring Magistrate did not by itself extinguish the District Magistrate's authority. The earlier decisions relied upon also supported the view that the District Magistrate retained power to tender pardon, though considerations of judicial propriety required fresh or additional facts before a lower authority would ordinarily grant pardon after refusal by a higher authority.
Conclusion: The District Magistrate had jurisdiction to consider and grant pardon notwithstanding the earlier refusal by the First Class Magistrate.
Issue (ii): whether an order granting pardon under Section 337 was revisable and the revision before the Sessions Court was competent.
Analysis: An order granting pardon was an order made in criminal proceedings and fell within the revisional power to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of orders and the regularity of proceedings under Section 435. The grant of pardon was therefore open to revision, even though interference on merits would depend on the facts of each case. The existence of revisional jurisdiction meant that the Sessions Court could entertain the challenge to the District Magistrate's order.
Conclusion: The revision filed before the Sessions Court against the order granting pardon was competent.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the High Court's view on the District Magistrate's lack of jurisdiction was rejected, and the order granting pardon was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: The power to tender pardon under Section 337 is concurrent among the authorities specified therein, and a prior refusal by the Magistrate conducting the inquiry does not bar the District Magistrate from entertaining a fresh request; an order granting pardon is also revisable under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
TaxTMI 
