ORDER

The petitioners/accused 5 and 6 are before this Court calling in question order dated 07-10-2021 passed by the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge to deal with criminal cases related to MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka, Bangalore City in Special C.C.No.54 of 2014 whereby the concerned Court allows the petition of accused No.4 on an application filed under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C., seeking pardon on turning as an approver.

2. The facts adumbrated are as follows:-

A crime comes to be registered against several accused including the petitioners/accused 5 and 6 and the 2nd respondent /accused No.4 in RC 17(A)/2012. The crime is registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’). The CBI after investigation files a charge sheet against all the accused. After filing of the charge sheet by the CBI, when the matter was posted for framing of charge, several accused filed discharge applications and those applications come to be dismissed in terms of the order of the Special Judge dated 10-11-2016. The discharge application was filed by accused No.4/respondent No.2 as well. The Court further directed framing of charge against accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 409 and 420 of the IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and against accused 2 and 4, one of whom was 2nd respondent for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409 and 420 of the IPC. The said order of framing of charge was called in question before this Court in Criminal Petition No.368 of 2017 along with several other connected cases. All those petitions come to be dismissed directing continuance of trial against all the accused. Therefore, charges were sought to be framed by posting the matter for framing of charges. At that stage, the 2nd respondent/ accused No.4 files an application under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of pardon.

3. The contention of the 2nd respondent was that he was only an employee of accused No.2-Company, was well acquainted with the day-to-day affairs of the Company and he has been arrayed as accused in the representative capacity as also individual capacity alleging the afore-quoted offences. He was willing to turn as approver in the event pardon would be granted under Section 306 of the IPC. The CBI files a memo stating that it has no objection to the application filed by accused No.4/2nd respondent and the contention was that he should give his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., disclosing all the facts. After considering the application and submissions of respective parties, the learned Special Judge by the impugned order allows the application, grants pardon to the 2nd respondent /accused No.4. It is this order that is called in question by the co-accused – accused Nos. 5 and 6.

4. Heard Sri H.Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri B.K. Arun, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that if this practice is permitted every co- accused will turn as approver which would cause grave prejudice to the other accused. It is his submission that the CBI filed detailed objections and vehemently opposed the discharge application filed by the accused but did not whisper any objection to the grant of pardon to the 2nd respondent. He would submit that the learned Special Judge has not applied his mind for grant of pardon and, therefore, the order should be set aside, with a direction to the learned Special Judge to re-consider the application in the least.

6. Per-contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI would vehemently oppose the petition and the submissions to contend that Section 306 Cr.P.C., is in the statute only for that purpose, discovery of truth is the aim of criminal justice system and if additi