The Court concurred with the ASG on all four grounds.
Section 16(3) of the NIA Act states, “Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Special Court shall, for the purpose of trial of any offence, have all the powers of a Court of Session and shall try such offence as if it were a Court of Session so far as may be in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code for the trial before a Court of Session.“
Therefore, the Court held that uninfluenced by the stage of investigation, inquiry or trial, a Special Court can entertain an application for grant of pardon, since it has the powers under Sections 306 and 307.
The language employed in Sections 306 and 307, as pointed out by the ASG, was taken note of by the Court which agreed that pardon can be sought for persons who are not necessarily arrayed as accused but who are directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence.
The Court also concurred with the ASG that the co-accused has no right to challenge challenge an order for considering the tender of pardon sought by the investigating agency.
It further held that the appeal, being against an interlocutory order, was not maintainable as per Section 21(1) of the NIA Act.
“However, since we spent considerable time on the issue raised by the appellant and that clarity as regards the procedure is warranted for future guidance, we thought it appropriate to address the issues on merits as well,” the Court said in conclusion.
Source: Barandbench
