Prashant Kumar Rohela v. C.B.I & ANR

CRM-M-29263-2017 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Criminal Misc. No.M-29263 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 08, 2017 Prashant Kumar Rohela ......PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

Central Bureau of Investigation and another ....RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.

This is petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short-Cr.P.C.) for setting aside order dated 18.04.2017 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Haryana, Panchkula, whereby accused Sandeep Kumar was allowed pardon on the condition of his making a full and true disclosure of whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the commission of offence in this case. The petitioner is co-accused with Sandeep Kumar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that bribe in this case was received by Sandeep Kumar and he was apprehended at the spot by the raiding party, so, he is the main accused. He has further raised question about the credibility of Sandeep Kumar-when he appears as prosecution witness.

He, however, do not dispute that under Section 5 (2) of Sachin Mehta 2017.11.09 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

CRM-M-29263-2017 -2Prevention of Corruption Act (for short-P.C. Act), the trial Court is competent to grant pardon to any of the accused as per provisions of Section 306 Cr.P.C. It is nowhere case of the petitioner that any provision of Section 306 Cr.P.C. has been violated while granting pardon to the petitioner.

As per allegation of the prosecution, the bribe money was received by Sandeep Kumar for payment to the petitioner. Sandeep Kumar is not a government official and has opted to turn approver. So far as the question of his credibility as prosecution witness is concerned, the same will be a fact to be seen by the trial Court on the basis of his statement made in the Court and cannot be commented upon at this stage. As the counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the petition on the ground that any provision of Section 5(2) of P.C. Act or 306 Cr.P.C. has been violated, I find no merits in this petition and the same is dismissed. ( SURINDER GUPTA ) November 08, 2017 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Sachin Mehta 2017.11.09 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh