The Delhi High Court has ruled that an accused individual has no legal standing to oppose a co-accused’s petition to seek a pardon and become a state witness.
Dismissing an application in a money laundering case, Justice Jasmeet Singh clarified that a co-accused’s opportunity to challenge such a development arises during the trial stage, where they can cross-examine the witness to question the credibility of their testimony.
Trial Stage Protections
In the judgment dated July 4, the court explained that Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not grant a right of audience to every co-accused during pardon proceedings. According to the court, the act of granting a pardon does not inherently cause prejudice to other co-accused individuals, nor does it directly result in their conviction.
The ruling emphasized that a trial court can only admit the testimony of an approver after they have undergone formal examination and subsequent cross-examination. The court noted that this process provides the defense with a sufficient and effective opportunity to challenge the reliability of the witness’s statements.
Company Plea Dismissed
The decision came in response to a plea filed by an accused firm in an ongoing money laundering case. The company had sought the recall of a 2024 court order that granted approver status to another accused person in the same matter. The applicant company argued that the previous order was passed without giving it a fair hearing, asserting that it was a necessary party to the proceedings.
Justice Singh rejected these arguments, describing the company’s concerns as premature. The court highlighted that multiple high court rulings have established that a co-accused holds no right to be heard during pardon proceedings, as their legal rights only emerge once the trial begins. Finding no procedural errors or violations of the principles of natural justice in the 2024 order, the court dismissed the application.
