Karnataka High Court rejects plea by Congress MLA Satish Krishna Sail against allowing co-accused to turn approver in illegal mining case

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a plea by Congress Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), Satish Krishna Sail challenging the pardon granted to a co-accused in an illegal mining case, after the latter turned an approver in the case. [M/s Shree Mallikarjun Shipping v CBI]

Justice M Nagaprasanna upheld an order of the special MP/MLA judge, who had granted pardon to the co-accused in a case relating to the alleged illegal export of iron ore in which Sail is also an accused.

Justice Nagaprasanna reasoned that all the traits necessary for granting pardon under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were present in the trial court’s order. 

“The only rider to the said power to be exercised by the concerned Court on an application under Section 306 of the CrPC is that it should not be an order which bears no application of mind,” the High Court observed. 

The MLA is among several persons accused in a criminal case registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the matter.

When the matter was posted for framing of charges, one of the accused persons filed an application seeking a grant of pardon on the grounds that he was only an employee of the accused company and was willing to turn an approver. 

The trial court allowed this application, prompting Sail and a shipping company, who are accused in the case, (petitioners) to challenge the trial court's order before the High Court.

The petitioners argued that if this practice is permitted, every co-accused will turn an approver causing grave prejudice to the others accused.

However, the CBI contended that the discovery of truth was the aim of criminal justice system and if additional evidence comes about in a given case, it is always good for all parties concerned. 

The judge began his analysis by noting that the purport of Section 306, CrPC and the soul of the criminal justice system was the discovery of truth by all means, even by procuring additional evidence.

Further, reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lt. Commander Pascal Fernandes v State of Maharashtra which held that pardon is a permissible exercise of power by the concerned court. If a full disclosure of facts comes about due to grant of pardon, it should be permitted, the top court had ruled.

The High Court proceeded to note that the trial court’s order of pardon was well-reasoned. Hence, the High Court found no reason to interfere and dismissed the petition. 

“It is a well reasoned order which takes note of several judgments on the issue rendered by the Apex Court and allows the application filed by accused No.4. Therefore, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order passed by the concerned Court," the High Court said.

Advocate Pavana Chandra Shetty appeared for the petitioners while the respondents were represented by Special Public Prosecutor P Prasanna Kumar and BK Arun.

[Read Order]