JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the case State Vs. Kartar Singh Narang etc. (popularly known as Bomb Blast Case of Delhi) Jagjit Singh s/o Bhagat Singh r/o 52164, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi was granted pardon and made approver on recording his statement under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (in short Criminal Procedure Code .) by a magistrate during investigation of the case. Subsequently, he was examined as a witness during committal proceedings before a metropolitan magistrate wherein he resiled completely from his previous statement recorded under S. 164 Criminal Procedure Code . and he also made it clear before the committing magistrate that he did not want to become an approver and thus sought to cast away the pardon granted to him as approver and desired to be tried tor the offence in respect of which he had been granted the pardon. The case was committed to the court of session and on the day when the accused persons appeared the petitioner was also produced but the petitioner made an application that since he had not accepted the pardon and even if any pardon had been granted to him, he was not willing to accept the same and depose as a prosecution witness and that he knew nothing about the case, he may be tried along with the other accused persons for the offence in respect of which pardon was granted to him. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected his prayer vide order dated 1-3-1986 and aggrieved by that order the petitioner has now filed this criminal revision challenging the correctness and validity thereof.

(2.) The learned trial court, in the impugned order, was of the opinion that S.306(4)(a) Criminal Procedure Code . made it mandatory for the examination of the approver as a witness in the court of the committing 'magistrate during enquiry as also in the subsequent trial, if any implying thereby that the approver had got to be examined belore the court of session also if the case was committed by the enquiring magistrate to that court and that thereby a duty had been cast on the trial court to examine him as an approver.

(3.) in order to appreciate the relevant provision of law on this point and also to arrive at a correct conclusion in respect thereof it appears necessary to set out the relevant portions of the sections of Criminal Procedure Code . appearing on the question calling for determination :-