JUDGMENT :

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. The petitioner (accused) assails order dated 11.01.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul (Annexure P-3) vide which an application filed by the prosecution under Section 306 Cr.P.C. for grant of pardon to the petitioner has been declined.

2. It is a case where allegations are broadly to the effect that the petitioner who was working as a Registry Clerk and co-accused Amit Kumar who was Naib Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Satnali, Narnaul, had been demanding amount from the complainant for getting sale-deeds registered. When a trap was laid, it is the co-accused Amit Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, only who was caught red-handed.

3. During the proceedings of trial, the prosecution moved an application for grant of pardon to the petitioner who had not been caught at the spot. The trial Court declined the said application while observing that there was sufficient evidence against co-accused Amit Kumar. The observations made in para No.6 of the impugned order are reproduced herein under:

“6. So, it appears to this Court that this application is not being genuinely moved by the Investigating Officer of this case, rather, it has been moved for giving indirect benefit to accused Somvir Singh so that under the guise of becoming approver he should be escaped from the punishment if it is warranted lateron on the basis of available evidence. Resultantly, I find this application devoid of merits. Consequently, it is dismissed. Since sufficient evidence is available against accused Somvir Singh who demanded money from the complainant as bribe for Arnit Kumar out of which accused Amit Kumar gave Rs.10,000/- to him as his share as per the disclosure statement of Amit Kumar. Therefore, without making further delay, the challan should be submitted by the Investigating officer of this case against accused Somvir Singh and necessary permission for his prosecution should also be obtained by him from competent authority because he was public servant at the relevant time……………….”

4. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, this Court had narrowed down controversy by framing the following three questions :-

(i) Does an accused himself have locus-standi to move an application for grant of Pardon in terms of Section 306 Cr.P.C. or as to whether the said provisions are for the purpose of facilitating prosecution only under the limited circumstances of lack of evidence against co-accused?

(ii) Can “Pardon” in terms of Section 306 Cr.P.C. be termed as beneficial legislation for the benefit of accused as is “Pardon” granted in terms of Article 72 or Article 161 of Constitution of India?

(iii) Upon an application under Section 306 Cr.P.C. moved by prosecution being dismissed by trial Court, does the accused for whom “Pardon” is sought, have locus-standi to challenge that order?

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel.

6. Each of the three questions framed above is being discussed individually herein-under :-

7. Question (i)

Does an accused himself have locus-standi to move an application for grant of Pardon in terms of Section 306 Cr.P.C. or as to whether the said provisions are for the purpose of facilitating prosecution only under the limited circumstances of lack of evidence against coaccused?

The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Lt. Commander Pascal Fernades versus State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 Supreme Court 595, wherein an application was made by one accused Jagasia to the Court praying therein that he be tendered pardon and made an approver and be examined as a prosecution witness. The reasons furnished by the accused Jagasia were that he had full and complete knowledge of all the facts which had taken place between the officers and the contractors and was in a position to disclose how the conspiracy was entered into amongst the accused. The said application was, however, opposed by other co-accused