LT. COMMANDER PASCAL FERNANDES versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

LT. COMMANDER PASCAL FERNANDES versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

The Special Judge’s powers under s. 8(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 are not confined to prosecution applications and may be exercised on application by the accused. However, the Special Judge should consult the prosecution before tendering pardon, and the interests of accused and prosecution must be...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Lt. Commander Pascal Fernandes; Respondent: State of Maharashtra; Respondent: A. K. Sen, Bishamber Lal and H.K. Puri
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 September 1967
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated July 20, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 439 of 1967
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tender of Pardon, Approver Testimony, Powers of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act
Criminal Law Tender of Pardon Approver Testimony Powers of Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lt. Commander Pascal Fernandes

Appellant

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

A. K. Sen, Bishamber Lal and H.K. Puri

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated July 20, 1967 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 439 of 1967

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Special Judge's power to tender pardon under Section 8(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 can be exercised only on the prosecution's application and whether it is governed by considerations under Section 540, Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether the procedure adopted by the Special Judge in tendering pardon was proper and judicially exercised

Ratio Decidendi

The Special Judge’s powers under s. 8(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 are not confined to prosecution applications and may be exercised on application by the accused. However, the Special Judge should consult the prosecution before tendering pardon, and the interests of accused and prosecution must be balanced. Since the prosecution favoured the tender of pardon in this case, the court would not interfere.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the order of the High Court upholding the tender of conditional pardon stands.