UNENDRA KUMAR LENKA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the informant. Opposite parties 2 to 4 are facing trial under Section 366/34, Indian Penal Code, in S.T. No. 76 -D/90 now pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge. Kamakhyanagar. During the pendency of the matter before the trial Court an application was filed on behalf of the Public Prosecutor for tendering pardon to present opposite party No. 4, one of the accused persons, so that he can be examined as a witness as an approver. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the said accused (present opposite party No. 4) had not made a full and true disclosure of the facts and had not implicated himself in the case. Criminal Revision No. 74/91 filed by the State before the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, was rejected.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the revision before the Sessions Judge, an affidavit of accused Satrughan Jena was filed wherein the accused had purported to give a true and full account of the incident. However, the Sessions Judge observed that the affidavit filed long after the impugned order passed by trial Court was not a matter to be considered for the purpose of examining the legality of the order of the trial Court.