CHINNAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Crime No. 101 of 1966 of Tiruttani police station three persons, Chinnappa, Aruldoss and Krishnan, were charged for the murder of one Gopal. The confessional statement of Krishnan was recorded by the Sub-Magistrate, Kancheepurarn, on 9-3-1966. Subsequently, on 17-6-1966, when the matter was still under investigation, pardon was tendered to Krishnan by the Executive First Class Magistrate, Trivellore, acting under the proviso to Section 337 (1) of the Crl. P. C. Krishnan was sought to be examined as P. W. 1 in the preliminary enquiry conducted under Chapter XVIII. Crl P. C. by the judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tiruttani. Objection was taken to this by the other two accused, Chinnappa and Arul-doss, on the ground that the tender of pardon was invalid, because the Executive First Class Magistrate, Trivellore, who tendered the pardon had himself not examined Krishnan and recorded his statement but had merely relied on his prior confessional statement made on 9-3-1966 before the Sub-Magistrate, Kancheepuram. This objection was overruled by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Tiruttani. This revision case has been filed against that order.

(2.) SECTION 337 (1) of the Code, so far as it is relevant, says that any Magistrate of the First Class may, at any stage of the investigation, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned or privy to the offence, tender pardon to such person on condition of his making a 'full. and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof. Sub-section (1a) states that every Magistrate who tenders a pardon under Sub-section (1) shall record the reasons for so doing.

(3.) IN this case, the learned Executive First Class Magistrate Trivellore, after stating the facts says;