2020 (5) TMI 562

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... an order, dated 5th March, 2020, passed by the the learned Special Judge (PC Act)(CBI)-10, Rouse Avenue. 3. By the said order, the learned Special Judge has dismissed the application, preferred by the petitioner/Directorate of Enforcement, under Section 308, Cr.P.C., for revocation of the pardon, extended to the respondent under Section 306, Cr.P.C. 4. Paras 21 to 25 of the judgment of the learned trial court, which contain, essentially, the grounds on which the application has been rejected, may be reproduced thus: "21. The respondent Rajiv Saxena has filed an application u/s 306 Cr.P.C. for tender of pardon and making him approver, subject to the condition that he will make a full disclosure to the extent, the facts are wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has thus violated the conditions as imposed on him vide order dated 25.03.2019. 23. From the perusal of Section 306 & 308 Cr.P.C and aforesaid judgment, it is clear that once the accused is granted pardon by the Court and is made approver, the status of the accused changes from accused to witness/approver. However, if the approver, fails to comply with the conditions of order granting him pardon, he makes him liable to be tried as accused subject to the conditions as laid down in Section 308 Cr.P.C. in the judgment "State vs. Jagjit Singh", it is observed that revocation of pardon can only be as per the procedure provided U/s 308 Cr.P.C which mandates that approver be examined in the Court before revoking the pardon. Thus, it is c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. Essentially, this case involves a pure question of law. The learned trial court has, on the basis of the judgment of Supreme Court in State v. Jagjit Singh (1989) Supp. 2 SCC 770 , adopted a view that, before the respondent is examined in court, and, consequent thereupon, a certificate is granted by the Public Prosecutor, there can be no question of revocation of the pardon granted to the respondent. This finding, according to the present petition, is incorrect, as the judgment in Jagjit Singh (supra) stands clarified in a subsequent judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari (2010) 10 SCC 179. 7. Resultantly, a pure question of law, relating to the circumstances in which revocation of pardon, under Section....