This Criminal revision case has been directed against the order dated 29.9.2015 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2014, in Calendar Case No.28 of 2012, by XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, relating to Banks and Financial Institutions.

2. The revision petitioner, as petitioner, has filed Crl.M.P.No.5515 of 2014 in Calendar Case No.28 of 2012, on the file of the trial Court, praying to give tender of pardon to him, wherein, the present respondent has been shown as respondent.

3. The material averments made in the petition are that the respondent, as complainant, has filed a final report under Sections 120-B r/w.420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1973 and also under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same has been taken on file in Calendar Case No.28 of 2012, wherein, the present petitioner has been arrayed as 6th accused. Further it is averred in the petition that the petitioner is an innocent person. The petitioner has had no personal knowledge about the opening of fictitious account in the name of M/s. Steel India with Axis Bank, George Town Branch, Chennai. None of the witnesses stated anything about the role of the petitioner. In the statements given by Witness Nos.31, 32 and 34, it is clearly pointed out about their performance in connection with the transactions, but they have not been shown as accused. The signatures of the petitioner have been fraudulently obtained. The petitioner is a relative of the 3rd accused. Since some of the accused have been arrayed as witnesses, the same yardstick can also be extended to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the present petition has been filed to discharge the petitioner by way of giving tender of pardon.

4. On the side of the respondent, a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been clearly stated that the petitioner is also one of the members of conspiracy. In fact, huge money has been involved. The relief sought for in the petition need not be granted and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the divergent contentions raised on either side, the trial Court has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order, the present criminal revision case has been preferred, at the instance of the petitioner, as criminal revision petitioner.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has repeatedly contended that the petitioner has simply put his signatures at the behest of the third accused. The investigating officer has examined witness Nos.19, 31, 32 an 34 and even from their statements, the Court can easily discern that they have also involved in the alleged offences, but they have been purposely shown as witnesses. Since the petitioner has simply put his signatures at the behest of the 3rd accused, he can also be given the same yardstick. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein, but the trial Court has given an erroneous finding to the effect that if tender of pardon is given to the petitioner, subsequently he would become a hostile witness and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the trial Court is totally erroneous.

7. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has contended that as per Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner is also having power to maintain the present petition, but at the same time, it is for the prosecution to obtain evidence for the purpose of proving its case and the specific contention put forth on the side of the respondent is that whatever the evidence available would be sufficient to prove its case and therefore, the role of the petitioner as one of the witnesses is totally unwarranted and further the present petitioner is a relative of one of the main accused and the trial Court, after considering the over all circumstances available on record, has rightly dismissed the petition and therefore, the dismissal order passed by the trial