Co-accused has no legal right to be heard or impleaded at the stage of granting pardon to an approver.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR against M/s NKG Infrastructure Ltd. (the "Applicant") and others for money laundering related to a Delhi Jal Board tender obtained via a false performance certificate.

Tajinder Pal Singh (the "Petitioner") moved an application under Sections 306 and 307 of the CrPC to become an approver.

The Applicant sought impleadment in those pardon proceedings, but the Special Judge rejected the impleadment on 30.07.2024 and subsequently denied Singh’s pardon on 22.08.2024.

Singh challenged the denial via a Revision Petition. On 03.12.2024, the High Court set aside the Special Judge’s order and granted Singh approver status.

The Applicant then filed the present application (CRL.M.A. 17144/2025) seeking to recall the 03.12.2024 order, arguing they were a necessary party and were not heard.

1. Whether the High Court has the power under Section 482 of the CrPC to revisit and recall a final order in light of the bar contained in Section 362 of the CrPC.

2. Whether a co-accused has a legal right to be heard or to oppose the grant of pardon to another accused under Sections 306 and 307 of the CrPC.

The court applied Section 362 of the CrPC, which bars a criminal court from altering or reviewing its final judgment except for clerical errors.

The bar under Section 362 CrPC does not apply to "procedural reviews" involving violations of natural justice, citing State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar.

The grant of pardon is a matter between the Court, the prosecution, and the applicant-accused, as established in CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal and Gurvinder Singh Bhatia v. CBI.

The principle of res judicata in criminal proceedings, referencing S.C. Garg v. State of U.P., holds that issues finally decided between parties cannot be reopened.

The Court first clarified that while Section 362 CrPC generally prohibits review, a court may exercise inherent powers under Section 482 to recall an order if it is a nullity due to a procedural lapse or violation of the audi alteram partem rule.

The Court found that the Applicant was barred by res judicata because they had previously sought impleadment before the Trial Court, which was rejected on merits on 30.07.2024—an order the Applicant never challenged.

The Court reasoned that the scheme of Section 306 CrPC does not require hearing a co-accused because the grant of pardon does not adjudicate their guilt.

The Court held that a co-accused suffers no prejudice at this stage, as their right to challenge the approver’s testimony arises during the trial through cross-examination.

The Court held that since the Applicant had no statutory or legal right to be heard at the stage of granting pardon, there was no violation of natural justice; consequently, the application for recall was dismissed.