A Delhi Special CBI Court has ruled that co-accused persons cannot claim a right of hearing on an application filed by another accused seeking pardon and permission to turn approver under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The order was passed by Special Judge Atul Krishna Agrawal in the Texcomash International bank fraud case while deciding objections raised by several co-accused against the application moved by accused 23, seeking pardon and approver status.
The CBI case pertains to offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC along with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused had first moved the application in 2016, stating that he was willing to make a “full and true disclosure” of the alleged conspiracy and all persons involved.
Opposing the plea, several co-accused argued that accused himself was described by the prosecution as one of the principal conspirators and therefore could not be granted pardon without hearing the remaining accused. It was also contended that the CBI had repeatedly changed its stand regarding accused’s role and his request to become an approver.
The Court, however, held that neither Section 306 CrPC nor Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act expressly grants co-accused persons a right to intervene in pardon proceedings. Relying on judicial precedents, the Court observed that the process of tendering pardon is essentially a matter between the court and the accused seeking pardon.
The Court further noted that co-accused persons would have sufficient opportunity during trial to cross-examine the approver and challenge the veracity of his testimony. It added that the question whether the accused seeking pardon has made a complete and truthful disclosure is for the prosecution and the court to examine at the appropriate stage.
At the same time, the Court expressed reservations about the CBI’s fluctuating position concerning accused. The order records that the agency had earlier termed him a principal accused, later conditionally supported his request to become an approver subject to forfeiture of ₹6 crore deposited during bail, subsequently withdrew its no-objection, and later restored support for his plea in 2025.
Observing that these developments created “reasonable suspicion” regarding the CBI’s factual and legal stand, the Court clarified that although co-accused cannot demand a hearing as a matter of right, the Court may seek their assistance whenever necessary while deciding the pardon application to ensure a fair and just outcome.
Appearances:
Sh. Tajvinder Singh, Ld. PP, CBI.
Sh. Arjun Syal, Ld. Counsel for A-23
Sh. Saurav Kumar, Ld. Proxy Counsel for A-24.
Sh. Ranjeet Singh, Ld.Proxy Counsel for A-29 & A-30
