Broad pardon power under criminal procedure law extends to unarraigned persons, while repeat prayer was barred by issue estoppel.
Section 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was construed broadly to allow tender of pardon to any person supposed to be directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, the offence, even if not yet arraigned as an accused, because the phrase "any person" was given its plain meaning and the provision is enabling subject to full and true disclosure. A renewed prayer for the same relief was held barred by issue estoppel where an earlier clarification had already settled that the person would be examined as a witness on pardon and not proceeded against as a co-accused. The Magistrate's order was sustained.
Issues: (i) Whether Section 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits tender of pardon to a person who has not yet been arraigned as an accused; (ii) whether repetition of the same prayer was barred by issue estoppel.
Issue (i): Whether Section 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits tender of pardon to a person who has not yet been arraigned as an accused.
Analysis: The expression "any person" in Section 337(1) was held to be wide enough to include not only an accused person but also a person who is supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to the offence. The statutory words were given their plain meaning, and the heading or marginal note could not control the clear language of the section. The provision was found to be enabling, with the only relevant qualification being the person's supposed involvement and the condition of making a full and true disclosure.
Conclusion: The provision does permit tender of pardon to a person even if he has not been summoned as an accused.
Issue (ii): Whether repetition of the same prayer was barred by issue estoppel.
Analysis: An earlier clarification order had already made it clear that the person concerned was to be examined as a witness on tender of pardon and not proceeded against as a co-accused, and the challenge to that order had failed. In that background, a renewed prayer for the same relief was held to be barred, as the issue had already been concluded and could not be re-agitated.
Conclusion: The repeated prayer was barred by issue estoppel.
Final Conclusion: The Rule was discharged, and the Magistrate's order was sustained, with the proceeding to continue before the court below in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is broad enough to permit tender of pardon to any person supposed to be concerned in or privy to the offence, whether or not that person has already been arraigned as an accused; a concluded determination on the same prayer cannot be reopened.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
