The Order of the Court was as follows :

S. Krishnaraj, the husband becomes an approver against his own wife Senthamarai in a criminal proceeding. Having failed in her attempt to prevent the trial Court from tendering pardon to her husband and declaring him as an approver, the petitioner/wife is before this Court through this criminal revision petition challenging the order granting pardon.

On the complaint of one Dhanalakshmi Ammal, a case was registered against the petitioner Senthamarai and her husband Krishnaraj and others alleging that they fabricated the false and forged documents, the Will and Deed of Assumption with forged signature of the said Dhanalakshmi Ammal and her husband Nataraj Chettiar in order to get the entire properties in favour of Senthamarai and to have total control over the Institutions run by the Trust and got it registered with the Sub-Registrar at Rajapalayam on 4-7-1995. After finishing investigation, on 18-11-1999 the charge-sheet was filed against Senthamarai/wife, Krishnaraj/husband, Palani Murugan, the Car Driver and one Balasubramaniam, the Sub-Registrar of Rajapalayam. The case was taken on file in C.C. No. 2 of 2000. Before the commencement of trial, husband Krishnaraj gave judicial confession to Judicial Magistrate-II, Srivilliputhur under Section 164, Cr. P.C. alleging that the said documents were forged and falsely fabricated with the help of all the accused in pursuance of conspiracy. Since the second accused husband wanted to become an approver, the CB CID, the prosecuting agency filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Virudhunagar under S. 306, Cr. P.C. in Crl. M.P. No. 2156 of 2000 requesting pardon for the said Krishnaraj on 28-6-2000. On the very same day, the first accused Senthamarai, the petitioner herein filed an objection. The trial Court after considering the petition and counter and hearing the counsel for the parties, passed an order on 28-7-2000 granting pardon to the second accused Krishnaraj. This is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.Mr. Asokan, the learned senior counsel while assailing the impugned order would make the following contentions :

(1) Even though the case was registered in 1996 and the charge sheet was filed in 1999, the approver did not choose to give any confession under S. 164, Cr. P.C. and the belated application seeking for pardon on the basis of his confession which was given after the charge-sheet was filed would not show bona fide as the same was filed in order to escape from the punishment. Furthermore, the statement under S. 164, Cr. P.C. cannot be considered to be confession since it is self-exculpatory.

(2) From the year 1996, in which year the case was registered, the stand of the accused Krishnaraj in the application filed before the different forum that the allegations leveled against him and others are absolutely false. The sudden change in his stand for seeking for pardon and consequent filing of the application requesting the Court to treat him as an approver would constitute an abuse of process of Court.

(3) In the year 1999-2000, Krishnaraj, petitioner's husband had indulged in several irregularities relating to the family properties and Trust properties. When the petitioner/wife tried to check him, he attacked her and caused injuries to her. Therefore, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint and also filed civil proceedings against her husband. Having suffered with various interim orders and complaints, the husband Krishnaraj colluded with the complainant Dhanalakshmi Ammal and conspired to make such a false statement under S. 164, Cr. P.C. and also to seek pardon to act as an approver.

(4) The order tendering pardon to the accused Krishnaraj would become unnecessary in view of the availability of the other materials collected by the prosecution to prove the case against all the accused.In reply to the said submissions, the counsel for the first respondent/husband and the Additional Public Prosecutor