The High Court of Karnataka has upheld the decision of the special court for CBI cases, which had granted pardon to an accused in a case of illegal export of iron ore after the accused offered to become an approver and disclose all information on the alleged commission of offences by other accused persons, including Satish Krishna Sail, MLA.
What petitioner said
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while rejecting the petition filed by Shri Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Goa, and its managing director Mr. Sail. The petitioners had claimed that if this practice of granting pardon was permitted, every co-accused would turn as an approver and that would cause grave prejudice to the other accused persons.
The special court had on October 7, 2021, granted pardon to 73-year-old Sushil Kumar Valecha, who was an employee with Shri Lal Mahan Ltd. and one of the accused in the case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2014.
Other accused persons are Mahesh J. Beliye, then in-charge port conservator of Belikeri port in Karawar, Shri Lal Mahan Ltd. and its managing director Prem Chand Garg, Shri Mallikarjun Shipping Ltd., and Mr. Sail.
Details on commission of offence
As the CBI had said that it had no objection to Mr. Valecha becoming an approver provided he disclosed details on the commission of the offence, the special court accepted his plea to turn an approver and granted a pardon under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) on the condition that he should make complete disclosure on commission of the alleged offences.
Pointing out that “the apex court had held that if by tendering of a pardon, prosecution thinks that it will be in the best interest of the successful prosecution of the other offenders whose conviction is not easy without the approver’s testimony, then the court should accept it,” the High Court said that the special court had dealt with all aspects before granting pardon.
The special court had also noted that under Section 308 of the Cr.PC, the court had the power to initiate criminal proceedings against the approver if such a person, after the grant of pardon, violates the condition or if he wilfully conceals anything essential by giving false evidence.
