K VENKATA REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadiri granting pardon to Pasupuleti Ganganna, the sole accused in P.R.C. No. 11 of 1967 on his file, on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence of criminal conspiracy and attempt to murder for which an enquiry against the petitioners herein and four others was pending disposal in P.R.C. No. 3 of 1967.

(2.) Eight persons including the petitioners in this case and Pasupuleti Ganganna were charge-sheeted in P.R.C. No. 3 of 1967 on the, file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadiri under section 307 read with sections 115 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Since Ganganna, who was the 4th accused in that case, could not be apprehended, the case against him was split up and a separate case as P.R.C. No. 11 of 1967 was registered against him. After the arrest of Ganganna on 19thNovember 1967, the Assistant Public Prosecutor moved the learned Magistrate to club P.R.C. Nos. 3 and 11 of 1967 but this request was negatived. A confessional statement was recorded from Ganganna on 24th November, 1967.. The Assistant Public Prosecutor moved the Court below by a memo., dated 21st December, 1967 to tender pardon to Ganganna, the sole accused in P.R.C. No. 11 of 1967 so that he could be examined as an approver in P.R.C. No. 3 of 1967. This request was granted by the learned Magistrate on 22nd December, 1967 subject, as already stated, to the con lition that Ganganna should make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence of criminal conspiracy and attempt to murder for which an enquiry was being held against the accused in P.R.C. No. 3 of 1967. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners who are accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in P.R.C. No. 3 cf 1967 preferred a revision to the learned Sessions Judge as, according to them, Ganganna who is the sole accused in P.R.C. No. 11 of 1967 cannot be pardoned and taken as an approver for the purpose of giving evidence against them in P.R.C. No. 3 of 1967 when he is not their co-accused in that case. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision observing that " section 337, Criminal Procedure Code stresses mainly on the " offence " and also on the person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to the said offence " and not on his being a co-accused in the case in which he is sought to be examined as an approver after granting pardon. Hence this revision.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the tender of pardon to Ganganna who is the sole accused in P.R.C. No. 11 of 1967 is illegal as, according to him, the object of granting pardon is only to examine the person as an approver against his co-accused in the same case and not in a different case, and that the learned Sessions Judge erred in his conclusion that Ganganna need not be an accused in P.R.C. No. 3 of 1967 to be entitled to pardon. Section 337 Criminal Procedure Code lays down that in the case of any offence triable exclusively by the High Court or Court of Session, or any offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, or any offence under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code viz., 161, 165, 165-A, 216-A, 369, 401, 435 and 477-A, the District Magistrate, a Presidency Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any Magistrate of the first Class may, at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of the offence, with a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to the offence, tender a 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. A plain reading of the section would make it abundantly clear that it is not at all necessary that the person to whom pardon is tendered should be an accused either in the case in which he is proposed to be examined as a witness or in any other case as a matter of that and that it is enough if he is directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to the offence. When there is nothing in the section to warrant the inference that the person to whom pardon is tendered should be at least an accused not to speak of his being a co-accused in the particular case in which he is sought to be examined, it is futile to contend that the grant of pardon to Ganganna is illegal or irregular for thesimple reason that he is not proposed to be examined in the same case in which he is figuring as an accused. The emphasis in section 337, Criminal Procedure Code is on the word "offence" and not " Case" and so the mere fact that Ganganna has not been figuring as a co-accused in the same case as the petitioners is of no consequence when he is supposed to have been directly concerned with the identical offences for which the petitioners are being prosecuted. It might be possible for the prosecution to secure the evidence of Ganganna in P. R. C. No. 3 of 1967 other wise than by pardoning him but this cannot be a ground to hold that the tender of pardon by the learned Magistrate is illegal when all the conditions mentioned in section 337 Criminal Procedure Code have been fully satisfied. The offence with which the petitioners are charged is triable by a Court of Session and the Judicial First Class Magistrate, who tendered pardon, is competent to grant pardon under section 337 Criminal Procedure Code. The other condition viz., that Ganganna should be a person who is directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to the offence is also satisfied in this case as he made a confessional statement a few days prior to the date on which pardon was tendered to him. When all the requirements of section 337, Criminal Procedure Code have been fully satisfied and there is nothing in the section making it a condition precedent that the person to whom pardon is tendered should be a co-accused in the case in which he is proposed to be examined as an approver, it cannot be said that the grant of pardon to Ganganna by the Court below is illegal or irregular.