Approver may grant pardon even if he was charged with other Acts
In our view, the High Court was not correct in concluding that until evidence has been given by the Appellant the pardon could not operate. However, the fact remains that under Section 306 Cr.P.C. the pardon is granted in respect of the offence for which he had been charged as an accused. Of course, a pardon need not be only in respect of an offence under the Indian Penal Code. A person may be charged,, in respect of the same transaction or act, under the Indian Penal Code and under some other Act, e.g. the Prevention of Corruption Act. The pardon would operate in respects of all offences pertaining to that transaction. However the pardon does not operate in respect of a transaction or act entirely unconnected with the offence in respect of which pardon has been granted. In this case, the pardon has been granted for the offence of misappropriation of funds. This offence has nothing to do with filing of false returns by the Appellant. The prosecution under Sections 277 and 278 is in respect of filing false return and making of false declaration. The pardon which has been granted would not cover those offences.
If approver does not make a full and complete disclosure the pardon may be cancelled
However, it is clear that to get benefit of the pardon the Appellant has to make a full and frank disclosure regarding the offences of misappropriation. If he does not make a full and complete disclosure, the pardon may be cancelled. If he makes a full and complete disclosure he faces the prospect of being convicted! in the prosecution under Sections 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India enjoins that no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself. To continue with the prosecution would thus amount to forcing the Appellant to give evidence against himself or to risk pardon being cancelled as he cannot make a full and complete disclosure for fear of being convicted in the other case. Thus, even though the pardon may not extend to these offences, in our view, this is a fit case where the Government should consider not prosecuting the Appellant under these Sections. To insist on so prosecuting may result in valuable evidence being lost in the fodder scam cases.
Party
DIPESH CHANDAK vs. UNION OF INDIA – Crl. Apl. No: 1032 of 2004 – SEPTEMBER 17, 2004
Dipesh Chandak vs. U.O.I e6a7fb9a3111c4f1ab583ccabae187f7f96d72af5e29ff44fb6d44ba9c9cbaec1678448928
