The central legal point established in the judgment is that the power to tender pardon in a criminal case should be exercised with the objective of bringing the real culprits to book, particularly in cases where a grave offence is alleged to have been committed by several persons.

Tender of pardon in a criminal case is an exceptional power and has to be exercised to advance the cause of justice. When an accused comes forward seeking pardon on condition that he shall make a full and complete disclosure of the circumstances relating to the commission of the crime, the Court granting the pardon has to keep in the forefront the need of the ends of justice. It has been pointed out in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Ganeswara Rao, A.I.R. 1963 SC 1850 that the very object of this provision is to allow pardon to be tendered in cases where a grave offence is alleged to have been com­mitted by several persons so that with the aid of the evidence of the person pardoned the offence could be brought home to the rest.

2. It has been contended in this petition under section 482 Cr. P. C. that pardon was tendered to accused Ranjit Chakra­borty in Sessions Trial No. 35 (W.T/A) 86 under sections 302/ 34/109/201 I. P. C., without keeping tie after requirements of Section 307 Cr. P. C. in mind. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the aforesaid accused was granted pardon only on the learned Sessions Judge being satisfied that he would make a full and complete disclosure of the circumstances rela­ting to the murder of one Upendra Bhowmick. It has been urged by Mr. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that the very object of the power to tender pardon, namely, to see that the real culprits are brought to book with the assis­tance of the evidence proposed to be led by Sri Chakrabarty has not been borne in mind while passing the impugned order.

3. We have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. S. Das, Advocate, and Mr. S. Barman Roy, learned counsel appearing for the wife of the deceased. As there is nothing in the present order to satisfy us that pardon to accused Ranjit Chakraborty was granted for the reason that his evidence was necessary to bring the real culprits to book which, according to us, is the spring board for the exer­cise of power under section 307 Cr. P. C., we set aside the impugned order. and send back the case to the learned Ses­sions Judge to apply his mind afresh on the question of granting pardon to Ranjit Chakraborty. It is apparent that while pas­sing the appropriate order in this regard the learned Sessions Judge shall hear all the concerned parties.

4. The impugned order is set aside with the aforesaid observations.