ORDER

This Revision Petition has been filed questioning the order dated

05.03.2020 in Crl.M.P.No.181 of 2019 in C.C.No.291 of 2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Coimbatore.

2.This petition has been filed by the 1st accused in C.C.No.291 of

2012. The said calender case had been taken cognizance pursuant to final report filed by the respondent under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. Charges had been framed and twenty six witnesses have been examined. The only witnesses who have to be examined are the approver, who was originally shown in the First Information Report as A3 and the Investigating Officer.

3.A perusal of the records show that a First Information Report in Crime No.RC 6(S)/2011/CBI/SCB/Chennai had been registered on 21.06.2021 against S.S Govindaraj (A1), K.R.Easwaramuthy (A2) and A.Rajasekaran (A3) on the basis of a complaint dated 20.06.2011 given by the Zonal Manager, Indian Bank Zonal Office, Coimbatore. Final report was filed on 30.10.2012 for offences under Section 120 B read with 420, 468 and 471 of IPC against S.S Govindaraj (A1) and K.R.Easwaramuthy (A2). A.Rajasekaran who was arrayed as A3 in the First Information Report was shown as Approver since at the time of filing final report he had been granted pardon after following due process.

4.In the list of documents filed along with the final report, 99 documents have been cited by the prosecution. Document No.95 is the statement of A.Rajasekaran recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., on 14.03.2012 by the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. Document No.96 is the order dated 28.06.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.1091 of 2012 granting pardon to A.Rajasekaran under Section 306 Cr.P.C. However, in the final report A.Rajasekaran was not cited as a witness. Crl.M.P.No.1358 of 2018 was filed by the respondent / prosecution to examine him / approver as a witness and the said petition was allowed by order dated 14.11.2018. That order has not been challenged by any of the accused. Thereafter, when the prosecution wanted to examine the Approver / A.Rajasekaran as a witness, the present petitioner / A1 filed Crl.M.P.No.181 of 2019 to set aside the order of grant of pardon made in Crl.M.P.No.1091 of 2012 dated 28.06.2012. That petition came to be dismissed by order dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. Questioning that particular order, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

5.The main ground urged by Mr.V.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner / A1 is that when A.Rajasekaran / approver was examined by the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate Chennai on 14.03.2012, the petitioner herein was not granted a right of cross-examination of the approver. It had been stated that therefore, the grant of pardon by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore to the approver was not in order and should be interfered with.

6.This contention had been strongly disputed by Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) who pointed out that the petitioner herein had not questioned the permission granted by the trial court to examine the approver as witness in Crl.M.P.No.1358 of 2018. It was also pointed out that when the approver was examined as witness during trial, the petitioner would have every opportunity to cross-examine him. It was also contended that pardon had been granted after following due procedure and there was no irregularity in the same.

7.I have carefully considered the arguments put forth.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily relied on a Full Bench judgment of the Gujarat High Court reported in AIR 1962 Guj 283 FB, Kalu Khada and others V. The State. In that case, the Gujarat High Court had examined interpretation of Section 337 of old Cr.P.C., which provision is pari materia to Section 306 of Cr.P.C., 1973. In paragraph 6, the questions which came up for consideration before the Full Bench were set out:

“6.Two questions were canvassed before us and bot