Safiya Malik

The Calcutta High Court has quashed an order of the Special (CBI) Court No. 1, Calcutta, which had rejected an application under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking a tender of pardon to an accused willing to turn approver. The court directed that pardon be granted to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of Section 306 CrPC. The order was passed in a revision petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), challenging the trial court’s refusal to grant pardon despite the investigating agency’s consent.

The petitioner, the Enforcement Directorate, challenged an order dated November 14, 2024, passed by the Special (CBI) Court No. 1, Calcutta, in M.L. Case No. 04 of 2019. The trial court had dismissed an application under Section 306 CrPC filed by the opposite party, Shri Pritimoy Chakraborty, who sought pardon in exchange for full cooperation with the investigation.

The complainant (ED) contended that the trial court’s observation that the opposite party was "not an accomplice" could prejudicially affect the prosecution’s case. The ED argued that such a finding could diminish the likelihood of securing a conviction. The agency had submitted in writing before the trial court that it was in the interest of justice to allow the opposite party to turn approver.

On the other hand, the opposite party submitted that he had voluntarily sought pardon and was willing to fully cooperate with the investigation. He contended that the trial court erred in rejecting his application, despite the investigating agency's consent.

The High Court recorded that the opposite party had filed an application under Section 306 CrPC before the trial court, seeking a tender of pardon in exchange for a full disclosure of all facts within his knowledge relating to the alleged offence and the involvement of others. The ED had supported this request.

However, the trial court, after personally examining the opposite party in chambers, concluded that he was not an accomplice and was neither directly nor indirectly involved in the alleged offence. It also observed that the opposite party’s application for pardon was not voluntary but was influenced by external factors.

The High Court examined the legal position under Section 306 CrPC, which states: "With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of, the offence, and the Magistrate of the first class inquiring into or trying the offence, at any stage of the inquiry or trial, may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof."

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Jasbir Singh v. Vipin Kumar Jaggi, reported in 2001 (3) RCR (Criminal) 818, which held that the power under Section 306 CrPC is exercised by the Special Judge on behalf of the prosecuting agency and must be exercised when the prosecution joins in the request. The Sessions Judge is not required to assess the possible value of an approver’s testimony in the abstract before granting pardon.

The court stated that since the complainant (ED) had agreed to the request for pardon, the trial court ought to have allowed the application.

The High Court issued the following directions:

1. The impugned order dated November 14, 2024, passed by the Special (CBI) Court No. 1, Calcutta, in M.L. Case No. 04 of 2019 is set aside.

2. The application filed by the opposite party under Section 306 CrPC is allowed.

3. Pardon is tendered to the opposite party as per the conditions prescribed under Section 306 CrPC.

4. The parties may obtain urgent certified website copies of the judgment as per prescribed formalities.

Case Title: Enforcement Directorate v. Shri Pritimoy Chakraborty
Case Number: C.R.R. 149 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suvra Ghosh

[Read/Download order]