Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 405 (JHR)

Lalan Singh v. Union of India

2011-05-04

D.K.SINHA

body2011
JUDGMENT (1) THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 19-2-2011 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Sessions Judge- Dhanbad by which the petition filed under Section 306 Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner-Lalan Singh to tender him pardon being the accomplice in R.C. 9 (A)/07-D was dismissed. (2) THE petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in A.B.A.No.1859 of 2009. THE F.I.R. was lodged by the S.P., C.B.I. at Dhanbad vide R.C. 9(A)/07-D on 11-09-2007 against the named accused but the petitioner was not named there for the alleged offence under Sections 120B/420/468/471 and 477A Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After investigation final report in terms of Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted against the accused including the petitioner as accomplice, however, with the observation at page 45 in the concluding line, "the accused Lalan Singh is proposed to be made as an approver in this case in the final report and it was submitted before the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad, on the basis of which cognizance of the offence was taken after perusal of the materials on the record. The petitioner on the basis of the observation made by the Investigating Officer in the final report filed a petition under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad with the request to grant him pardon as he expressed voluntarily to become an approver on behalf of the prosecution. In reply to his petition filed under Section 306 Cr.P.C. the C.B.I. stated that accused petitioner (Lalan Singh) had already delivered an inculpatory statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure against the co-accused by admitting his guilt before the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad on 18-11-2008 and that pardon of Shri Lalan Singh was essential with a view to Obtaining his evidence against the co-accused. It was requested by the C.B.I. therefore that the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 306 Cr.P.C. may be allowed by approving" him as an approver as there was no other material, oral or documentary to establish the guilt of the co-accused in the case. (3) ASSAILING the order impugned dated 19-2-2011 recorded by the Special Judge, C.B.I. in R.C. No. 9(A)/07-D on 19-2-2011, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. (3) ASSAILING the order impugned dated 19-2-2011 recorded by the Special Judge, C.B.I. in R.C. No. 9(A)/07-D on 19-2-2011, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mazumdar submitted that the petition of the petitioner under Section 306 Cr.P.C. was refused on the ground that the Special Public Prosecutor, C.B.I. had opposed the anticipatory bail and that the statement of Lalan Singh u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. might not be relied upon as approver as his statement was vague and there was direct allegation against him in the charge-sheet. (4) MR. Mazumdar further submitted that there was an error of record in drawing the impugned order for the reason that the C.B.I. ?itself had proposed that the petitioner Lalan Singh be declared as approver as because he could have revealed the complicity of the other accused by adducing his evidence on behalf of the prosecution and the facts have no relevance as to whether the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was opposed by the C.B.I. or not rather the anticipatory bail of the petitioner was granted on its own merit in spite of opposition from the prosecution side in the High Court. Heard Mr. Khan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the C.B.I., who conceded and affirmed the contentions of the final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. wherein the Investigating Officer proposed that Lalan Singh an accused could be made an approver in this case for the reasons assigned therein. He further admitted that in the reply filed on behalf of the C.B.I. as against the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 306 Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad it was requested that petition of the accused petitioner may be allowed as except his statement there was no other material, oral or documentary to establish the guilt of the co-accused in this case. (5) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, I find that the request as made by the petitioner having been supported by the C.B.I, needs conscious consideration. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 19-2-2011 recorded by the Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in R.C. 9(A)/07-D is set aside. (5) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, I find that the request as made by the petitioner having been supported by the C.B.I, needs conscious consideration. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 19-2-2011 recorded by the Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, Dhanbad in R.C. 9(A)/07-D is set aside. Prayer of the petitioner for declaring him approver by tendering him pardon is allowed and granted, however, with the condition that the petitioner would make a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstance within his knowledge relating to the offence and would not conceal any relevant fact which may adversely affect the Courts of the proceeding of the case in terms of Section 306 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (6) WITH this observation, this Criminal Revision is allowed. Let this order be communicated forthwith. Petition allowed.