Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the C.B.I and learned Amicus Curiae.
(2.) In these two petitions common order dated 31.05.2018 passed in R.C. No. 38(A)/1996-Pat by the learned Court of Additional Judicial Commissioner -I cum Special Judge-VII, CBI(AHD Scam), Ranchi is under challenge whereby the order granting pardon to these petitioners has been revoked and petitioners have been directed to appear for framing of charge on 14.06.2018. Petitioner Md. Sayeed who was posted as Staff Veterinary Officer at Dumka Treasury at the relevant period from December 1995 to January 1996 had approached this Court initially against the order dated 26.02.2018 asking him to show cause as to why pardon granted to him earlier be not cancelled. After submission of reply to the show cause, the order cancelling pardon dated 31.05.2018 passed during pendency of this petition, has been challenged through I.A. no. 4945 of 2018. Petitioner Rameshwar Prasad Chaudhary (referred to as Rameshwar herein after) was a Head Clerk/ Assistant in the office of Regional Directorate, AHD Dumka during the relevant period December 1995 to January 1996. He has straightway challenged the order dated 31.05.2018 cancelling pardon granted to him earlier and also the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 where under he was asked to show cause.
(3.) Both these petitioners claim to stand on similar footing. They were earlier made accused in the instant R.C case as accused no.6 and 2 respectively vide charge-sheet dated 11.05.2000. However, they volunteered to make disclosure statement under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C before the learned Trial Court. After acceptance of their disclosure statement made under Section 306 of the Cr.P.C, Learned C.B.I Court granted pardon to petitioner Md. Sayeed and Rameshwar vide order dated 28.04.2003 (Annexure-2) and 28.01.2004 (Annexure-1) without objection by the C.B.I. Learned Court was satisfied that petitioner Md. Sayeed's disclosure statements revealed his involvement in the case disclosing the facts and circumstances as well as involvement of other accused persons in commission of the offence. Prosecution had no objection for tendering him pardon. Similarly in the case of petitioner Rameshwar vide order dated 28.01.2004, learned Trial Court was satisfied that his statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C and also in the Court disclosed the facts and circumstances of the case about his involvement as well as involvement of other accused in commission of the offence and the prosecution had got no objection if he was tendered pardon. However, learned Trial Court in the case of both the petitioners imposed condition that they will abide by the statements made in the case earlier in the Court and when ever needed, they will support the prosecution case. Thereafter these petitioners deposed in favour of the prosecution case set up by the C.B.I as P.W.55 and P.W.196 respectively.;