Accused Can Challenge Trial Court's Rejection Of Prosecution’s Application For Pardon: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that an accused has the locus standi to challenge the rejection of an application filed by prosecution under Section 306 CrPC seeking pardon.

“An accused does have a right to move an application independently to the trial Court under Section 306 Cr.P.C. seeking pardon, the same would necessarily imply that any order passed by the trial Court under Section 306 Cr.P.C. by which an accused is aggrieved can be challenged by such accused by filing appropriate petition before a Higher Court,” said Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill.

Relying on Lt. Commander Pascal Fernades versus State of Maharashtra and other precedents, the court said even an accused can move an application seeking grant of pardon but the court concerned is expected to seek response of the prosecution while considering any such request made on behalf of the accused.

"However, it has been cautioned in Pascal Fernandes’ case ... that such practice should be avoided. Ultimately, it is the discretion of the Court whether to allow or decline such application. The language of Section 306 Cr.P.C. and also the judgments also make it clear that the purpose of granting pardon to an accused is to facilitate the prosecution to prove its case with the help of statement of approver in addition to other evidence as may have been collected, particularly when otherwise there is some dearth of evidence," said the court.

The court was hearing a petition filed by the accused, for whom an application for pardon was filed by the prosecution but the same was rejected by the trial court. According to the prosecution, the petitioner Somveer Singh, who was working as a Registry Clerk, and co-accused Amit Kumar, who was Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Satnali, Narnaul, had been demanding money from the complainant for getting sale-deeds registered.

During the proceedings of trial, the prosecution moved an application for grant of pardon to the petitioner. While observing that there is sufficient evidence against the accused Somveer Singh and co-accused Amit Kumar, the trial Court declined the prosecution's application.

Justice Gill noted that the trial court, while declining the application, observed that it had rather been moved to extend favour to Somveer Singh under the guise of becoming approver.

“Upon receipt of a complaint made by the complainant, a trap was laid and co-accused Amit Kumar was caught red-handed while accepting bribe. The recovery of tainted currency notes, presence of shadow witness and other witnesses would constitute sufficient evidence against accused,” Justice Gill observed.

The complainant had also recorded audio-conversation which had taken place between the accused and complainant wherein the accused had raised demand of bribe, the court noted further.

It is not a case where there is some deep-rooted conspiracy which is to be unearthed and regarding which there is lack of evidence or such a case where the modus operandi of any scam is unknown, it added.

Considering that the present case is a trap case “where there is sufficient evidence available with the prosecution against the accused”, the bench said the trial court has correctly observed that the application is motivated and has been filed with oblique motives.

Referring to Apex Court’s decision in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, the Court said, “…it is only the lack of evidence which could justify grant of pardon to one of the co-accused. Any such application is to be examined minutely and cannot be accepted as of right.”

Case Title: Somveer Singh v.State of Haryana and others

Appearance- P.S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment