SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Ker) 767

High Court of Kerala
V. RAMKUMAR & P.Q. BARKATH ALI
Thadiyantevida Nazeer & Others
Versus
State of Kerala, Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Crl.M.C.No. 2303 of 2011
Decided on : 12-08-2011

Appearing Advocates:
For the Petitioners:T.K. Kunhabdulla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: R1, M. Ajay, Spl. Public Prosecutor for NIA.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - National Investigation Agency Act 2008 - S. 21( 5) - Seeking quash of order - Objection was filed by the Special Public Prosecutor opposing that the Special Court constituted under the N.I.A. Act- 2008 was a Court of Session in view of S.16 of the N.I. A. Act as per which the Special Court had the power to take cognizance of the offences without the accused being committed to it, that the Special Court being a Court of Session had the power to tender pardon to an accused under S.307 Cr.P.C, that the order granting pardon was a speaking order supported by reasons, that the evidence given by P.W.36 the Magistrate who recorded the statement of Shammi Firoz would show that the approver had disclosed all the facts truly concerning him and the co-accused that the approver had given evidence truly and no prejudice will be caused to the accused persons, that in case the approver had not complied with the conditions of pardon S.308 Cr.P.C. could be invoked only by the Public Prosecutor and that the accused/petitioners had no right to challenge the order granting pardon nor had they any right to be heard in the matter. - Held, Prosecution has no case that Shammy Firoz examined as P.W.1 had breached the contract between him and the State by resiling from the conditions of pardon. Even in the case of a breach S.308 Cr.P.C, the Legislature has advisedly reposed the remedy only in the Public Prosecutor. The Public Prosecutor has no grievance that Shammy Firoz examined as P.W.1 has resiled from the condition of pardon or that he has failed to make a full and true disclosure of the entire circumstances of the case within his knowledge. Hence, Annexure IV petition filed by the petitioners under S.306, 307 and 308 Cr.P.C. was misconceived since those Sections do not entitle the accused to seek a cancellation of the order granting pardon to the approver or to re-transpose the approver back to the array of accused. - ill-advised expedition by the petitioners/accused who were actuated by the sinister motive of aborting the trial assiduously conducted by the Special Judge - Petition dismissed

Judgment :-

V. Ramkumar, J.

In this Crl. Miscellaneous Case filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioners who are accused Nos.1, 3, 4 & 9 in Sessions Case No. 2 of 2010 (NIA) on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of N.I.A. Cases, Kerala at Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as “the Special Court” for short), challenge Annexure – C order dated 8-7-2011 passed by the Special Court. As per the said order, the Special Court dismissed their application filed as Crl.M.P. 135 of 2011 (Annexure – IV) seeking to cancel Annexure – III order dated 2-09-2010 of the Special Court tendering pardon to the approver, Shammi Firoz who was originally A7 and who was subsequently examined in the case as P.W.1.

2. A chronological narration of the facts leading to the impugned order is as follows:- 03/03/2006 - Infuriated by the attitude of the officials including the Executive and the Judiciary in not granting bail to the Muslim accused persons involved in the Marad carnage case the nine accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy to make, plant and explode bombs in the K.S.R.T.C. Bus stand and the Moffusil Bus stand in Kozhikode city and they thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 124 – A, 153 A and 324 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and Sections 16 (1) (b), 18 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sec. 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. Two cases were registered as Crime Nos. 80 of 2006 and 81 of 2006 of Kasaba and Nadakkavu Police Stations, Kozhikode. 13-06-2006 - The investigation of the two cases was transferred from the local police to the CBCID SIG-III, Kozhikode. 01-12-2009 - The Government of India entrusted the investigation of the case with the National Investigation Agency (“N.I.A”. for short). 04-12-2009 - The aforesaid two crimes were re-registered as Crime Nos.5 of 2009 and 6 of 2009 of N.I.A., New Delhi. 19-03-2010 - A7 Shammi Firoz was arrested by the N.I.A. 20-03-2010 - Shammi Firoz was produced before the Special Court for the trial in N.I.A. Crime No.5 of 2009. On that day he made Annexure A written request (registered as Crl.M.P. 437/10) expressing his willingness to turn an approver and make a full and true disclosure of the entire circumstances of the case within his knowledge. 25-03-2010 - The Superintendent of Police, N.I.A. filed Annexure – I petition (registered as Crl.M.P. 436/10) to record the statement of Shammi Firoz under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. since he had expressed his willingness to disclose the entire circumstances of the case invoking himself and others. (This petition was field since the police alone could sponsor an accused to be an approver). 30-03-2010 - The Special Court allowed Crl.M.P. 436/10. 31-03-2010 - On the direction of the Special Court, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, I, Ernakulam recorded the statement of Shammi Firoz under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. and Shammi Firoz accepted the tender of pardon by expressing the willingness to make a full and true disclosure of the entire circumstance of the case within his knowledge. 14-06-2010 - The Superintendent of Police, N.I.A. who is the Chief Investigating Officer filed Annexure-II Petition (Registered as 735/10) to treat A7 (Shammi Firoz) as an approver and tender him pardon. 02/08/2010 - The NIA field charge-sheet against 8 accused persons after deleting A5. A6 was killed in an encounter at Jammu & Kashmir. A2 and A8 are absconding. A3 was granted bail. Others are in judicial custody. 02/09/2010 - Shammi Foriz also filed Annexure – B petition (registered as Crl.M.P. 1056/10) to tender him pardon since he had already expressed his willingness to disclose the entire facts and circumstances in his statement recorded Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. 02/09/2010 - Special Court allowed Crl.M.P. 735/2010 as per Annexure III order his which the Court inter alia observed as follows:- “Direct evidence may not be plentiful. In the very nature of the case approver’s evidence, if available, will be



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top