The court established that a trial court should not prejudge the merits of evidence when considering an application for granting pardon under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 19-5-2015 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, Raipur in Criminal Case No. RC - 1242012A0002 rejecting the application filed by the applicant - CBI, for grant of pardon to respondent - O. P. Singhania under S. 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code').

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on the basis of source information FIR was registered by the applicant vide RC - 1242012A0002 against 08 accused persons alleging commission of offence under S.7, S.8 and S.12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act') read with S. 120 - B of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). According to CBI, the Income - tax Department conducted survey in Khaitan Group and found one Rajesh Agrawal to be the Chartered Accountant of the said group. The respondent herein is also a Chartered Accountant who according to CBI is close to Rajesh Agrawal. Certain illegal gratifications were said to be demanded by the Income - tax Officers for reducing the surrender amount and it is alleged that respondent - O. P. Singhania managed all the affairs and convinced Khetan Group that he would manage the Income - tax Officers. It is said that on 26-4-2012 the respondent went to the house of Joint Commissioner, Income - tax (for short 'JCIT') who demanded Rs. 15 Lakhs immediately from Khaitan Group. Accordingly, information was passed on by the respondent to one Arun Khetan to arrange the bribe amount and to reach the residence of JCIT immediately. Thereafter, Arun Khaitan and Sapan Khaitan came out of the house and while sitting in the car the bribe amount was handed over by Arun Khaitan and Sapan Khaitan to JCIT at his residence. Both Arun Khaitan and Sapan Khaitan after handing over the bribe amount to JCIT came out of the house and on the way they were apprehended by the CBI and brought back to the house of JCIT. Thereafter, the bribe amount was recovered and trap proceedings were conducted. Immediately thereafter the CBI apprehended the respondent herein namely O.P. Singhania from Pandri Market and he too was brought back to the residence of JCIT. After completing all the formalities, the accused persons were arrested.

3. On 13-5-2014 CBI recorded the statement of the respondent under S. 161 of the Code whereas the statement under S. 164 of the Code was recorded on 25-6-2014 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur. On 5-12-2014 CBI filed an application before the Special Judge, CBI, Raipur for tender of pardon to respondent and to examine him as approver under S. 306 of the Code of vide Ex. D - 1. On 8-4-2015 the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Raipur issued notice to the respondent on the application filed by CBI and on 12-5-2015 the respondent gave his written consent by filing affidavit on solemn affirmation.

4. Vide impugned order dated 19-5-2015 learned Special Judge rejected the application filed by CBI under S. 306 of the Code and observed that version of respondent in his statement recorded under S. 164 of the Code differs from the version of disclosure / recovery memo inasmuch as the statement u/S. 164 states that 'the respondent left the place by his car and thereafter Arun Khaitan and Sapan Khaitan went inside the residence of Shri Athaley (JCTI).'It is further observed by the Special Judge that approver is not giving the correct details of bribe transaction and, therefore, it is difficult to understand