(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records relating to the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3312 of 2017 in C.C.No.1 of 2017 dated 18.06.2024 on the file of learned XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions at Chennai and set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.3312 of 2017 dated 18.06.2024 and further direct the concerned Court to consider the petitioner for grant of pardon to the petitioner/accused-9 as per law.)

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed as against order passed by the XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.3312 of 2017 in C.C.No.1 of 2017, dated 18.06.2024, thereby rejected the request made by the petitioner to grant tender of pardon to him.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

3. The petitioner is arrayed as 9th accused. The case of the prosecution is that the first and second accused had conspired with each other and with unknown officials of TUFIDCO, thereby managed to defraud the funds to the tune of Rs.23.4 crores of TUFIDCO, which is to be deposited into Fixed Deposits in the Bank namely Indian Overseas Bank, Vadapalani Branch, Chennai. At such instance, they induced the Branch Manager of Indian Overseas Bank to deposit it in the Current Account No.900 opened for this purpose by unknown persons impersonating as TUFIDCO Officials, who were introduced by the 2nd accused. After completion of investigation, the 1st respondent-police filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

4. While pending for framing of charges, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988 read with Section 307 of Criminal Procedure Code, dated 21.08.2017 to grant tender of pardon. It was dismissed by the Trial Court on 06.08.2018 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred criminal revision case before this Court in Crl.R.C.No.277 of 2019. This Court by an order dated 04.09.2019, set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and remanded back to its file for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law. Once again, the petitioner filed a petition before the Trial Court to grant tender of pardon and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal revision case is filed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court had specifically recorded that the prosecution has no objection to treat the petitioner is an approver in this case. Further, it is just and necessary that the evidence of approver is required to substantiate the charges as against the co-accused. Further, to prove the missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, which were otherwise not available, further evidence of approver is necessary in the inherent of successful prosecution of other offenders.

6. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is revealed that the petitioner’s role in the crime is that he had fabricated PAN Cards, KYC Forms, Documents, Letters, FDRs-Fixed Deposit Receipts and photographs using the techniques of Photoshop as per the instructions of 3rd accused, for which he had received a remuneration of Rs.30,000/- for his job. Further, the statement of the petitioner herein is inculpatory in nature and admitted his guilt. After creation of all fabricated documents, he went to Hyderabad where he forged and fabricated the Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of State Bank of Hyderabad and again, he forged and created five Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of Union Bank of India, Cumbam Branch. Thereafter, he also created 25 Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of Indian Overseas Bank. Thereafter, he created letter pad in the name of TUFIDCO and fabricated PAN Card and ID Cards. Therefore, he had actively involved in creating a number of valuable securities and documents to defraud the funds of TUFIDCO to the tune of Rs.23.4 crores. Further, the granting of pardon is purely a judicial discretion and the petitioner cannot compel the Trial Court to grant pardon to him.

7. Further, the object of provision under Sections 306 and 307 is to allow a pardon in cases where heinous offenes is alleged to have been committed by several persons, so that with aid of evidence of person granted pardon, offence may be unraveled such accomplish gets protection from prosecution on condition of making a full and true disclosure of circumstances with in his knowledge made under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it could be seen that the petitioner’s role in the alleged crime is wider and he has played a vital role and he had actively involved in creating number of valuable securities and he seems to be a principal accused. Further, the granting of tender of pardon will arise only when there is no clinching evidence against the accused and without tendering such pardon, all the accused could walk scout free.

8. In the case on hand, there is no such circumstances arised and as such, the Trial Court rightly rejected the request made by the petitioner to grant tender of pardon and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.3312 of 2017 in C.C.No.1 of 2017, dated 18.06.2024.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.