Judgment

VAIDIALINGAM, J.: -The question that arises for consideration in this appeal by the State of U. P. on certificate is : -

"Whether a District Magistrate is competent under Section 337 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant pardon to an accused person when a First Class Magistrate, before whom the inquiry proceedings had been pending, had rejected such a request."

2. Before we proceed to state the facts it has to be mentioned that it has been brought to our notice that Sarwan Lal, the 4th respondent, died after the appeal was filed in this Court by the State. In consequence the appeal has abated against him. However, in the course of the judgment we will have to refer to him also when we state the case of the prosecution.

3. The prosecution case against the accused was as follows :-

The first respondent Kailash Nath, along with Sarwan Lal, Moti Chandra and Smt. Shanti Devi respondents 4 to 6 respectively, were the Directors of M/s. M. K. Brothers (P.) Ltd., Kanpur and were doing business in cotton in Kanpur. In the course of their business they used to purchase cotton from out stations and sell them to the textile mills at Kanpur. The second respondent, Kesardeo Dudhia, w