C.B.I. versus ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL & ANR.

C.B.I. versus ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL & ANR.

The grant of pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. is a judicial act requiring the court to consider the consequences and culpability of the person seeking pardon compared to co-accused; accomplice testimony requires substantial corroboration; the High Court did not err in remitting the application for fresh consideration, and respondent no.1 may not have a legal right to object but substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.

Parties
Appellant: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI); Respondent No.1: Ashok Kumar Aggarwal; Respondent No.2: Abhishek Verma
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Pardon Under Cr.p.c., Revisional Powers of Courts, Evidentiary Value of Accomplice, Public Policy in Criminal Trials
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Pardon Under Cr.p.c. Revisional Powers of Courts Evidentiary Value of Accomplice Public Policy in Criminal Trials

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)

Appellant

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal

Respondent No.1

Abhishek Verma

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Scope and manner of exercising power to grant pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Right of co-accused to object to tender of pardon
  3. 3 Evidentiary standards applicable to accomplice testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The grant of pardon under Section 306 Cr.P.C. is a judicial act requiring the court to consider the consequences and culpability of the person seeking pardon compared to co-accused; accomplice testimony requires substantial corroboration; the High Court did not err in remitting the application for fresh consideration, and respondent no.1 may not have a legal right to object but substantial justice should prevail over technicalities.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No interference with High Court order remitting application for pardon; application to be decided afresh by trial court on merits.
  • Interim order vacated.