The discretion of the trial court in tendering pardon to an accomplice is a matter of judicial discretion and cannot be interfered with under Section 482 of the Code.

By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinafter the Code), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09-12-1996, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Criminal Revision No. 28 of 1996 and order dated 22-02-1996, passed by learned Vth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Case No. 605 of 1995.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.4, filed a criminal complaint against applicant and respondent No.2 and 3 for their trial in respect of the offences allegedly committed by them, punishable under Section 120-B/467/ 468/471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. According to complainant a General power of Attorney was executed by making forged signature of the complainant and the same was presented before the Sub Registrar to claim full power to manage all the property of the complainant (respondent No.4). The respondent No.2 and 3, were alleged to have verified the signature of the complainant on the application and also identified the imposter alleged himself to be Duni Chand (complainant). Learned Magistrate after enquiry, summoned all three accused persons and recorded the evidence under Section 244 of the Code. Charges were framed against all the three accused persons on 29-10-1991. On 11-07-1995, complainant presented two separate applications, moved by the respondent No. 2 and 3 (both co-accused), tendering pardon on declaration as approver and readiness of their being examined as prosecution witnesses. The third co-accused - Dharam Singh (the present applicant), filed his objections before the trial court, pleading that the application, moved by the complainant on behalf of the co-accused for being declared approver is not maintainable. Learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties, allowed both the applications of the co-accused (respondent No. 2 and respondent No.3) on 22-02-1996, directing that the said two persons declaring accomplice on the condition that they will adduce evidence of true of account of the incident and would not conceal anything from court, failing which they would be tried as accused in respect of the same incident. Aggrieved by said order, accused - Dharam Singh (present applicant), filed a criminal revision No. 28 of 1996, after hearing the parties, which was also dismissed on 09-121996, by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun. Hence, this petition for quashing the orders and the proceedings.

3. I heard Shri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pradeep Lohani, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. Others did not contest the proceedings.

4. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here the relevant provisions of law in this regard. Section 133 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reads as under :-

"Accomplice- An accomplice shall be competent witness against an accused person; and a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice."

Now, I come to Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which reads as under :-

"306. Tender of pardon to accomplice :- (1) With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of, the offence, and the Magistrate of the first inquiring into or trying the offence, at any stage of the inquiry or trial, may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof.

(2) This section applies to-

(a) any offence triable exclusively by the court of Session or by the Court of a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Ame