05.04.2013 Views

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

928 DECISION - 518<br />

filing of the charge sheet as well as after the filing of charge sheet for<br />

holding trial. The Special Judge by virtue of sec. 5(2) of the Act<br />

enjoys powers contained in sec. 306 as well as sec. 307 of the<br />

Criminal Procedure Code.<br />

When an accused applies for pardon and the prosecution<br />

also supports him, the matter remains between the court and the<br />

accused applying for pardon and the other accused have no right<br />

whatsoever to intervene or ask for hearing. The other accused against<br />

whom evidence of the approver is likely to be used, shall have<br />

sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the approver when examined<br />

in the course of trial and show to the court that his evidence is not<br />

reliable or he is not a trustworthy witness. The law does not prohibit<br />

tender of pardon to a principal accused even. The tender of pardon<br />

remains within the domain of judicial discretion of the court before<br />

which the request of an accused for tender of pardon is made.<br />

Therefore, a co-accused cannot be permitted to raise objections<br />

against tender of pardon to another accused at investigation stage.<br />

(518)<br />

(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 19<br />

(B) Sanction of prosecution — under P.C. Act<br />

Passing a common sanction order against more<br />

than 25 accused persons, justified and valid.<br />

Ahamed Kalnad vs. State of Kerala,<br />

2001 Cri.L.J. KER 4448<br />

This is a case of prosecution under sec. 5(2) read with sec.<br />

5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding to<br />

sec. 13 (2) read with sec. 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988), where a common<br />

sanction order was passed for more than 25 accused persons.<br />

The High Court observed that there is considerable merit in the<br />

contention of the respondent-State that the offences involved in all these

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!