AIR 1959 MADRAS 274 ::1959 MadLJ(Cri) 503 ::(1959) 2 MadLJ61 ::1972 MadLW 74 ::ILR (1959) Mad 320

Madras High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): P. Rajagopalan, Balakrishna Ayyar , JJ

(A) Criminal P.C. (5 of 1898) , S.337(2), S.339(1)— Examination of approver as witness - S.339(1) if dependent on or connected with S.337(2). The provision that the accomplices who have been tendered a pardon must be examined both in the committing court and in the court of session is inserted in the interests of justice and is not intended for the benefit of the approver. The obligation to make a full and true disclosure would arise whenever the approver is lawfully called upon to give evidence touching the matter; it may be in the committing court, or it may be in the sessions court. But, the obligation to make a full and true disclosure rests on the approver at every stage at which he can be lawfully required to give evidence. If at any stage he either wilfully conceals material particulars or gives false evidence he would have failed to comply with the conditions on which the pardon was tendered to him and thereby incurred its forfeiture. Neither as a matter of reason or logic, nor as a matter of statutory interpretation can it be said that S. 339(1) is dependent on of connected with S. 337(2) in the sense that the approver must be examined both in the committing court and the sessions court before it can be held that he has forfeited his pardon. It is sufficient if he fails to conform to the conditions on which the pardon has been granted to him at eith....