K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE question of law that arises for consideration in this revision is : Whether under S. 306 (4) of the Cri PC the examination of an approver as a witness by the Committing Magistrate is mandatory before he passes the order of Committal ? The question arises under the following circumstances.

( 2 ) EIGHT accused in P. R. C. No. 8 of 1981 on the file of the Prll. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hyderabad East and North were charge sheeted for offences punishable under Ss. 147, 364, 302 read with Ss. 34 and 149 of the IPC for abduction and murder of one Katham Anjaneyulu on 5/12/1980. The approver Originally the eighth accused Palla Narasimhareddy was tendered pardon and his statement was recorded on 6/11/1982 and the Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session. The same was numbered as S. C. No. 18 of 1983 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District, before whom questioning the order of committal the fifth accused filed a petition seeking to set aside the committal order but the same was dismissed holding that the approver was examined and therefore there was compliance of S. 306 (4) of the Cri. P. C. As against that the present revision is filed.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under S. 306 (4) of the Cr. P. C. examination of the approver as a witness is mandatory and only after such examination, the Magistrate taking cognisance can commit the case to the Court of Session for trial. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case the approver was not examined as a Witness on 6/11/1982 but only his statement was recorded by the Committal Magistrate and as a matter of fact the case was not even posted to that date and therefore the lower Court has wholly erred in holding that the approver was examined as a witness as required under S. 306 (4) of the Cr. P. C.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the point involved, it becomes necessary to extract the relevant provisions. The corresponding provision to S. 306 (4) of the Cr. P. C. in the old Code is S. 337. S. 337 (2) of the (Old) Cr. P. C. reads thus :"every person accepting a tender under this section shall be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, if any". S. 337 (2-A) of the (Old) Cr. P. C. reads thus :"in every case where a person has accepted a tender of pardon and has been examined under sub-section (2), the Magistrate before whom the proceedings are pending shall, if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of an offence, commit him for trial to the Court of Session or High Court, as the case may be. "in the (amended) Cr. P. C. 1973 (Act II of 1974) the same provision is incorporated as S. 306 and the relevant provision reads as under :"306. Tender of pardon to accomplice. (1) to (3 ). . . . . . . . . (4) Every person accepting a tender of pardon made under sub-section (1) - (a) shall be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, if any; (b) shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of trial. (5) Where a person has accept a tender of pardon made under sub-section (1) and has been examined under sub-section (4), the Magistrate taking cognizance of that offence shall, without making any further inquiry in the case, - (a) Commit it for trial - (i) to the Court of Session if the offence is triable exclusively by that court or if the Magistrate taking cognizance is the Chief Judicial Magistrate; (ii) to a Court of Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952), if the offence is triable exclusively by the Court; (b) in any other case, make over the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall try the case himself".

( 5 ) A careful reading of S. 306 (4) of the Cr. P. C. leaves no room for doubt whatso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document