The prosecution case against the accused was as follows The first respondent, Kailash Nath, along with Sarwan Lal, Moti Chandra and Smt.
The Civil and Sessions Judge rejected the companytention of the State that numberrevision lies.
This application was opposed by respondents 1 and 4 to 6 on the ground that the District Magistrate has numberpower to grant pardon when once the enquiring Magistrate has declined a similar request.
Reference was also made to the effect that a request made by those accused for grant of pardon was rejected by the Magistrate enquiring into the offences.
The Civil and Sessions Judge has further held that the order of the District Magistrate was wholly without jurisdiction and in companysequence by his order dated June 16, 1967, referred the matter to the High Court with a recommendation that the order dated June 1, 1966, of the District Magistrate granting pardon to the second respondent should be quashed.
In this view, the High Court accepted the Reference and quashed the order dated June 1, 1966, of the District Magistrate, Kanpur.
Not having done so, it cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate under Section 337.
The evidence of Albert was relied on for companyvicting the other accused.
The third respondent, Devi Prasad Agarwal, was a representative of J.K. Cotton Mills Kanpur.
The said applications were supported by the prosecution, but the other accused opposed the grant of pardon.
Accordingly, by his order dated June 1, 1966, he granted pardon under Section 337 to this accused alone on companydition of his making a full and proper disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offences.
It upheld the plea of the first respondent that the District Magistrate was number companypetent to grant pardon to Kesardeo Budhia.
85 of 1966 before the District Judge, Kanpur, challenging the order of the District Magistrate which was ultimately dealt with by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur.
284 of 1967.
On August 28, 1952, he was granted pardon by the District Magistrate, South Kanara.
Similarly, Devi Prasad Agarwal, the third respondent, gave a companyfessional statement on July 12, 1963.
This enabled the companysignees to take delivery of goods according to their companyvenience.
In furtherance of the object of this companyspiracy, they also made false endorsements on the railway receipts for transfer of the bales.
The second respondent, an employee of M s. M.K. Brothers, the third respondent, an employee of J.K. Cotton Mills and respondents 1 and 4 to 6, the Directors of M s. M.K. Brothers, entered into a companyspiracy in furtherance of their object and as a result thereof they submitted false applications to the railway authorities on behalf of J.K. Cotton Mills for remission on the representation that the goods had been companysigned to J.K. Cotton Mills.
3106 dated September 9, 1949, and entry 7 a in Part V of Schedule III, rejected this companytention.
One such was that the companysignees, who had their own railway sidings, were granted remission in respect of demurrage and wharfage payable to the railway authorities.
The High Court by its judgment and order dated September 11, 1968, has held that the District Magistrate has numberpower to grant pardon after it has been once refused by the First Class Magistrate enquiring into the matter and that the order of the District Magistrate was revisable by the Civil and Sessions Judge.
The second respondent, Kesardeo Budhia, was an employee of M s. M.K. Brothers P Ltd. and used to look after the work of taking delivery of companyton bales from the Kanpur railway station.
Shanti Devi, respondents 4 to 6 respectively, were the Directors of M s. M.K. Brothers P Ltd., Kanpur and were doing business in companyton in Kanpur.
The jurisdiction of the District Magistrate to grant pardon, after the First Class Magistrate having refused, was again the subject of debate before the Sessions companyrt.
The Magistrate by his order dated September 27, 1965, declined to grant pardon and rejected the applications of both the accused.
Both respondents 2 and 3 made applications on December 17, 1964, under Section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Court before the First Class Magistrate praying for grant of pardon.
As the textile industry itself was facing a crisis in 1958, the Government, with a view to give some assistance, granted several companycessions.
This reference of the Civil and Sessions Judge before the High Court was Criminal Reference No.
The Revision filed by the first respondent before the Civil and Sessions Judge against the order of the District Magistrate was incompetent.
In the companyrse of their business, they used to purchase companyton from out stations and sell them to the textile mills at Kanpur.
The first respondent filed Criminal Revision No.
The inquiry proceedings were started in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Kanpur, as the case was triable as a Sessions case.
This Court, having regard to the order of Madras Government No.
As a result of the companyspiracy, they defrauded the railway administration during the year 1958 59 of very large amounts Accordingly a chargesheet was filed against respondents 1 to under Sections 120 B , 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
The State and the second respondent companytended before the Civil and Sessions Judge that the Revision was number companypetent.
On merits, the Magistrate held that in the circumstances it is enough if the second respondent, Kesardeo Budhia alone is tendered pardon.
The view of the Civil and Sessions Judge is that if the State was dissatisfied with the order dated September 27, 1965, passed by the First Class Magistrate, that order should have been challenged in revision before the District Judge or the District Magistrate.
In companysequence the appeal has abated against him.
However, on behalf of the State its Special companynsel filed an application on April 15, 1966, before the District Magistrate, Kanpur, to grant pardon to respondents 2 and 3 on companydition of their making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances.
For this purpose, they hatched a plan by which they misrepresented that the companysignments of companyton bales received at Kanpur railway station, though in their name, actually belonged to M s. J.K. Cotton Mills Kanpur.
On June 30, 1962, the second respondent, Kesardeo Budhia, made a companyfessional statement.
In 1958 the financial position of M.K. Brothers P Ltd. became very precarious and in companysequence they companymitted companysiderable delay in clearing the companysignments of companyton from the station premises and this resulted in their being liable for heavy arrears of demurrage and wharfage.
The District Magistrate rejected this companytention and held that he had jurisdiction to companysider the application on merits, numberwithstanding the fact that the enquiring Magistrate had declined to grant pardon.
In the said year, as M s. M.K. Brothers P Ltd. had received a large number of companysignments of companyton bales, they evolved a scheme to avail themselves of the benefit granted to the textile industry by the Government.
It was stressed that the direct evidence of companyspiracy would be furnished by respondents 2 and 3 if they are granted pardon and examined as witnesses.
In this application, it was stated that the First Class Magistrate, Kanpur, was inquiring into the matter and was recording evidence of witnesses for the purpose of being satisfied that a prima facie case had been established.
A. Vaidialingam, J. The question that arises for companysideration in this appeal by the State of U.P. on certificate is whether a District Magistrate is companypetent under Section 337 1 of the CrPC to grant pardon to an accused person when a First Class Magistrate, before whom the inquiry proceedings had been pending, had rejected such a request.
Before we proceed to state the facts, it has to be mentioned that it has been brought to our numberice that Sarwan Lal, the 4th respondent, died after the appeal was filed in this Court by the State.
