Pardon under S. 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be granted in respect of the offences mentioned therein and not for an offence under S. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with S. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J.: These three appeals arise out of three certificates granted by the Punjab High Court in a criminal matter. They will be dealt with together as the point raised in them is common. The brief facts necessary for the purpose are these: There is a Govt. Printing Press at Rashtrapati Bhawan known as Rashtrapati Bhawan Printing Press which is located in the President s estate in New Delhi. Jacobs was the General Foreman of this Press., Every year the budget proposal are printed at this press under the supervision of Jacobs. As usual, Jacobs supervised the printing of budget proposals in his official capacity in February 1955 also. It appears that Jacobs entered into a conspiracy to divulge the budget proposals on receiving valuable consideration for the same. Consequently the proposals were divulged to D. P. Chadda and were passed on to certain businessmen of Bombay, including Nandlal More and Hiralal G. Kothari through one A. L. Mehra. All this was done against the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, No. XIX of 1923. Further an offence was committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, No. II of 1947, also inasmuch as money was paid to Jacobs for divulging the budget proposals. The same thing happened in February 1956 with respect to the budget proposals for 1956-57. This was discovered on 9-3-1956, and a case was registered under S. 165-A. Penal Code, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, S. 5 of the Official Secrets Act and Section 120-B, Penal Code and investigation started on 10-3-1956. Thereafter pardon was tendered to A. L. Mehra by the Additional District Magistrate on 23-3-1956, under Sec. 337 of Cr. P. C. the four offences mentioned above were specified in the order of the Addl. Dist, Magistrate tendering pardon to Mehra. Thereafter owing to technical legal difficulties a complaint under S. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with S. 120-B of the I. P. C. was filed against the persons involved and it was stated in that complaint that proceedings with respect to the charge under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act would be taken separately. Proceedings then began before a magistrate on this complaint. It may be mentioned that no proceedings have yet started in so far as the offences under S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 165-A of the I. P. C. are concerned.

2. In the course of these proceedings before the magistrate, the prosecution wanted to examine Mehra as an approver. Thereupon the accused persons objected that as the proceedings before the magistrate were only under S. 5 of the Official Secrets Act and S. 120-B of the I. P. C., Mehra could not be examined as an approved and in consequence the case could not be committed to the Court of Session but should be disposed of by the magistrate himself. The magistrate held that Mehra could be treated as an approver and proceedings before him were therefore in the nature of commitment proceedings. Thereupon there was a revision to the Sessions Judge who took the view that as the proceedings before the magistrate were under S. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with S. 120-B of the I. P. C. and as no pardon could be tendered under S. 337 of the Cr. P. C. for these offences, Mehra could not be treated as an approver and had to be examined as an ordinary witness and the proceedings must be held to be trial proceedings before the magistrate and not commitment proceedings. He therefore recommended to the High Court that the order of the magistrate be set aside.

3. The High Court upheld the view of the Sessions Judge and ordered accordingly. It granted certificates under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution; and that is how these three appeals have been filed by the State before us.

4. The only question that has been urged before us is that the view of the magistrate is correct and Mehra could be treated as an approver and examined as such for the purposes of the proceedings before him. The question whether the case should b