https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287378 The article explains that the power to tender pardon under Section 337 was concurrent among the specified Magistrates, so a prior refusal by the First Class Magistrate did not by itself bar the District Magistrate from considering a fresh request. It also states that an order granting pardon was made in criminal proceedings and was therefore open to revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On that basis, the Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction was competent to examine the challenge to the pardon order, and the District Magistrate's authority to grant pardon was upheld. en-us Fri, 16 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Apr 2020 12:51:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287378 The article explains that the power to tender pardon under Section 337 was concurrent among the specified Magistrates, so a prior refusal by the First Class Magistrate did not by itself bar the District Magistrate from considering a fresh request. It also states that an order granting pardon was made in criminal proceedings and was therefore open to revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure. On that basis, the Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction was competent to examine the challenge to the pardon order, and the District Magistrate's authority to grant pardon was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287378