In Brief
The State challenged a High Court judgment that had quashed a Metropolitan Magistrate's order granting pardon to approvers in a Prevention of Corruption Act case, holding only a Special Judge could grant such pardon. The Supreme Court held that Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code explicitly empowers a Metropolitan Magistrate to tender pardon even in cases triable by a Special Judge, with concurrent jurisdiction existing during the investigation stage. The Court confirmed that Section 5(1) of the PC Act only waives the mandatory commitment requirement but does not exclude the Magistrate's power. Additionally, even if the Magistrate lacked power, the order would be saved as a curable irregularity under Section 460(g). The appeal was allowed and the High Court judgment was set aside.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[{"raw_citation": "(2014) 14 SCC 629", "case_name": "P.C. Mishra v. State (CBI) and Another", "cited_year": "2014", "paragraph": "7, 15, 16, 20", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "That was also a case under P.C., Act in which P.C. Mishra (appellant in the said appeal) and his Reader Ravi Bhatt were made accused persons. During investigation, CBI noticed that accused Ravi Bhatt was not a leading accused in the case and it was considered necessary to take him as an approver to prove the various missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, which were otherwise not available to the investigating agency."}, {"raw_citation": "AIR 2014 SC 1921", "case_name": "P.C. Mishra v. State (CBI)", "cited_year": "2014", "paragraph": "7, 15, 16, 20", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "(2002) 2 SCC 396", "case_name": "State of H.P. v. Surinder Mohan and Others", "cited_year": "2002", "paragraph": "7", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "AIR 2000 SC 1862", "case_name": "State of H.P. v. Surinder Mohan and Others", "cited_year": "2000", "paragraph": "7", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "(2012) 1 SCC 500", "case_name": "Bangaru Laxman v. State (through CBI) and Another", "cited_year": "2012", "paragraph": "4, 15", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "The Sessions Judge also held that the judgment of this Court in Bangaru Laxman v. State (through CBI) and Another (2012) 1 SCC 500 : ( AIR 2012 SC 873 ) that was cited by the respondent herein was distinguishable on facts"}, {"raw_citation": "AIR 2012 SC 873", "case_name": "Bangaru Laxman v. State", "cited_year": "2012", "paragraph": "4, 15", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "RLW 2003 (3) Raj. 1865", "case_name": "Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan", "cited_year": "2003", "paragraph": "11, 18", "treatment": "not_followed", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "We are however, not impressed by the aforesaid submissions. ... We, therefore do not find merit in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. For these reasons, we also do not agree with the view taken by the Raiasthan High Court in Rajendra Singh (supra) and over-rule that judgment."}, {"raw_citation": "(1997) 11 SCC 720", "case_name": "A. Devendran v. State of Tamil Nadu", "cited_year": "1997", "paragraph": "12, 17", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "The aforesaid legal position would also answer the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent based on the judgment of this Court in A. Devendran ( AIR 1998 SC 2821 ) (supra). In that case, this Court held that once the proceedings are committed to the Court of Session, it is that Court only to which commitment is made can grant pardon to the approver. The view taken by us is, rather, in tune with the said judgment."}, {"raw_citation": "AIR 1998 SC 2821", "case_name": "A. Devendran v. State of Tamil Nadu", "cited_year": "1998", "paragraph": "12, 17", "treatment": "distinguished", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "(1973) 1 SCC 751", "case_name": "State of U.P. v. Kailash Nath Agarwal", "cited_year": "1973", "paragraph": "15", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "1973 SCC (Cri) 698", "case_name": "State of U.P. v. Kailash Nath Agarwal", "cited_year": "1973", "paragraph": "15", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "AIR 1973 SC 2210", "case_name": "State of U.P. v. Kailash Nath Agarwal", "cited_year": "1973", "paragraph": "15", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "AIR 1958 SC 350", "case_name": "Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn.", "cited_year": "1958", "paragraph": "15", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}, {"raw_citation": "1958 Cri LJ 698", "case_name": "Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn.", "cited_year": "1958", "paragraph": "15", "treatment": "referred", "treatment_by": "this_court"}]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.