An order passed under section 306(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not an interlocutory order and the revision against such an order is maintainable.

JUDGMENT - PATEL H.D., J.: - The applicants, who are original accused Nos. 1 to 6, 12 and 14, along with other accused were charge-sheeted under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that under the Employment Guarantee Scheme the officers used to issue coupons for purchase of foodgrains to the labourers working under the scheme and the said labourers were required to give those coupons to fair price shop and the fair price shop used to issue food grains at concessional price. The fair price shop-keepers were to tender those coupons to the Treasury and the Treasury Officer in turn used to pay the amounts of the said coupons to the fiar price shopkeepers. It is further allege by the prosecution that the applicants and other accused, who are mostly fair price shopkeepers, conspired together including one Ajaykumar, who is accused No. 13 and prepared fair coupons which were tendered to the Government Treasury and the amounts were collected on such coupons and thereby they have cheated the State Government. Upon acquiring knowledge about the said cheating an investigating agency took cognizance of the offence and investigated the same, with the result that the applicants along with other accused were charge-sheeted for the offences mentioned above.

2. The criminal case was fixed for evidence, but on 3-2-1982 an application came to be filed on behalf of the State alleging therein that accused No. 13 Ajaykumar, is a person directly connected with the above referred offences and as such his evidence was necessary for adjudication of the matter and, therefore, the Chief Judicial Magistrate should grant pardon to Ajaykumar as provided under section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the prosecution be permitted to examine him as a witness.

3. The application came to be resisted on behalf of the applicants and other accused persons. The Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 3-3-1982 rejected the application. Not satisfied with the order the State of Maharashtra preferred a revision application being Revision Application No. 34 of 1984 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, who by his order dated 16-8-1984 while exercising revisional jurisdiction reversed the order passed by the trial Magistrate and granted pardon to accused No. 13 Ajaykumar and remanded the matter back to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking further steps. It is this order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, which is impugned in this revision.

4. Relying on the decisions in (Krishna Lal Gulati v. State)1, 1976 Cri.L.J. 1825 and (The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad v. I.V. Ramana Reddy)2, 1977 N.O.C. 174, it was initially contended by Shri V.R. Manohar, the learned Counsel for the applicants, that the order passed under section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was an interlocutory order and the revision preferred by the State against such interlocutory order is not maintainable under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This argument was repelled by Shri M.P. Badar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kailash Nath)3, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2210, and submitted that the order passed under section 306(1) was revisable.

5. Since the parties have relied upon the cases cited supra for determining whether the revision is permissible against the order passed by the Magistrate under section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it would be better to consider the decisions first. In the case of Krishan Lal Gulati it was observed that the order extending pardon is in relation to a trial and even after the conclusion of the trial in an appeal it is open to the accused person to question the correctness and impropriety of the pardon extended to a person and it also open to challenge the statement of approver and the rights of the parties ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document