Ramkumar, J.

The interesting question which comes up for consideration before us upon a reference by a Division Bench is the following:-

“Whether the statement of an approver examined before the appropriate Magistrate under clause (a) of sub Sec.(4) of Sec.306 Cr.P.C., is relevant and admissible under Sec.33 of the Evidence Act during the subsequent trial in which he is not available for examination by reason of his death in the meanwhile?”

The referring Bench was of the opinion that in the light of divergent views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in Kurian v. State – 1989 (1) KLT (SN) 37 – Case No.60 and State of Kerala v. Monu Surendran – 1990 (1) KLT 53, regarding the right to cross-examine an approver, an authoritative pronouncement must come from a larger Bench.

2. The appellants in this batch of appeals were the accused in the same or different cases popularly known as “the mark list cases” tried by the Special Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram upon a committal. For recording the conviction against the appellants, the trial court had, inter alia, relied on the statement recorded under Sec.306(4)(a) Cr.P.C. of one Anandan who was made an approver. The s