Accused Turns Approver, Co-Accused MLA Objects: Pardon Granted, HC Approves

The High Court of Karnataka has upheld the grant of pardon to one of the accused in a CBI case, stating that it is permissible if the testimony of the approver aids in successfully prosecuting other accused who may not be convicted through other means.

The Special Court in Bengaluru had granted pardon to Sushil Kumar Valecha, the director of Shri Lal Mahal Limited, New Delhi, which was challenged by co-accused M/s Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt Ltd and Sateesh Krishna Sail, the MD of the company.

The high court supported the trial court’s decision, stating “Pardon is a permissible exercise of power by the concerned court and if full disclosure of facts are coming about in terms of the said pardon, such pardon should be permitted”.

Valecha, an employee of Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt Ltd, applied for pardon, expressing willingness to turn approver. The CBI had no objections, leading to the approval of his application by the trial court on October 7, 2021, under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

MLA Sail, who is a current Congress MLA, and the company challenged this order in the high court. The case related to illegal iron ore mining dates to 2012. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered the crime against multiple accused and subsequently filed a charge sheet after investigating the case.

Several of the accused sought to be discharged from the case, but their requests were denied. The trial court proceeded to frame charges against the accused under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Valecha, an employee of Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Pvt Ltd, then filed an application seeking pardon, asserting that he was willing to become an approver. The CBI submitted a memo stating no objection to his application, leading to its approval. MLA Sail and the company challenged the trial court’s order in the high court, with the case being heard by Justice M Nagaprasanna.

On June 16, the high court delivered its judgment, deeming the trial court’s order as reasonable. It said, “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 (Valecha). Therefore, I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order passed by the concerned court.”

However, the court upheld the trial court’s order, considering it reasonable and in line with previous Supreme Court judgments. It said, “The apex court holds that if by tendering of pardon, prosecution thinks that it will be in the best interest of the successful prosecution of the other offenders whose conviction is not easy without the approver’s testimony, then the court should accept it.”

Furthermore, the high court directed the trial court to expedite the trial proceedings and conclude them promptly. It said, “The petition lacking in merit, stands dismissed. The concerned court, if it has not proceeded with the trial on account of pendency of the subject petition, shall now make every endeavour to conclude the proceedings by regulating its procedure.”