TITLE- Metropolitan magistrate can grant pardon at the investigation under section 306 of Cr.PC. 

BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY-

1. The appellant Gulshan Sikri, proprietor of M/S Filtrex India, Nangal Raya, New Delhi registered complaint under CBI bearing no R.C No. 15 (A) 96 DLI dated 29.02.1996 against P.C Mishra (Respondent no.1)

2. The appellant filed complaint under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding Rs. 4000 as a bribe by Respondent for settling the appeal filed against the order of Sales Tax Officer.

3. C.B.I caught Red- Handed P.C Mishra and his Reader Ravi Bhatt (Respondent no.2) while demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant on 1.3.1996.

4. On 1.3.1996, C.B.I arrested both the accused.

5. Ravi bhatt the other co- accused filed an application before the special judge for recording his confessional statement under section 164 Cr PC during the course of Investigation.

6. The special judge assigned the case to chief metropolitan magistrate who assigned to the metropolitan magistrate.

7. On 7.8.1996, statement of 2nd accused recorded under section 164 of Cr.PC.

8. During the course of investigation it was found that the co- accused Ravi Bhatt had accepted the bribe money for and on behalf of the appellant.

9. C.B.I found that he is not the main accused, and to arrest main accused it is necessary to take him as an approver to prove the various missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

10.  So, for pardon of co- accused Ravi Bhatt, C.B.I filed an application under section 306 Cr.PC  to special judge. Special judge assigned the case to chief metropolitan magistrate and he marked that to metropolitan magistrate.

11.  The metropolitan magistrate held that pardon should be granted to prove the various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

12.  The above mentioned order attains finality. Charges were framed against the appellant under section 7 and 3 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the PC Act on 8.2.2000. Trial was done and evidence was found against the appellant.

13.  Then, the appellant filed application before the special judge under section. 234 Cr.PC on 24.7.2008.

14.  The petitioner contended that pardon can be granted only by the Special Judge under Section 5(2) of the PC Act and not by the Metropolitan Magistrate, because he is not a designated Court under the PC Act.

15.  Special Judge rejected the application on 31.10.2008 by  holding that the Metropolitan Magistrate had the power to grant pardon during investigation under Section 306 Cr.P.C. and even if the Magistrate has not power and if  the order was passed in good faith, then such an order is protected under Section 460 Cr.P.C.

16.  Then the appellant filed an application before the high court of Delhi, which was rejected on 6.11.2018.

17.  Against this order the present appeal has been filed.

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY RESPONDENT-

a) One cannot raise the contention related to jurisdiction at any point of time. It should be raised at the time of investigation, till its culmination.

b) Metropolitan Magistrate has jurisdiction to grant the pardon to respondent no.2 under under Section 306 Cr.P.C. at the investigation stage.

c) In this case, special judge directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Metropolitan Magistrate to deal with the application for pardon.

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PETITIONER-

a)     The appellant contended that the metropolitan magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant the pardon to second Respondent as the matter is already laid before the Special Judge appointed under Section 3 of the PC Act.

b)     As per section Section 5(2) of the PC Act, only special judge has the power to grant pardon to respondent no.2.

c)      P.C mishra to support his contention emphasized on various case law such are- A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and another (1984) 2 SCC 500 Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh alias Iqbal Singh and another (2005) 12 SCC 709 Harshad S. Mehta and others v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 8 SCC 257 and Bangaru Laxman v. State (through CBI) and another (2012) 1 SCC 500. 

d)     He also contended that the issue with regard to jurisdiction could be raised at any point of time.

e)     Metropolitan Magistrate had granted pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. without issuing notice to the Appellant which has caused serious prejudice to him.

ISSUE- 

⮚     Whether metropolitan magistrate can grant pardon to the accused at investigation stage under section 306 of Cr. PC?

RATIO DECIDENI-

●      Both the special judge and metropolitan magistrate have power to grant pardon during the investigation period under section 306 of Cr.PC.

●      The court has considered case  State of U.P. v. Kailash Nath Agarwal and others (1973) 1 SCC 751 recognised the power of the District Magistrate to grant pardon at the investigation stage.

HELD- The appeal is disposed off. The Metropolitan Magistrate has not done any error in granting pardon.