1988 (12) TMI 343 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Examination of an approver who has resiled from his statement.
2. The legal obligation of the prosecution to examine the approver.
3. The right of the approver to cast away the pardon.
4. Protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Summary:

1. Examination of an approver who has resiled from his statement:
The respondent, Jagjit Singh, an approver in the Transistor Bomb Case, resiled from his statement made before the Committing Magistrate. Despite this, the prosecution sought to examine him as a witness. The Supreme Court held that Sub-section (4) of Section 306 of CrPC mandates that a person accepting a tender of pardon must be examined as a witness in both the Committing Court and the trial court, irrespective of whether the approver has resiled from his statement.

2. The legal obligation of the prosecution to examine the approver:
The Court emphasized that the prosecution is obligated to examine the approver as a witness in both the Committing Court and the trial court. This obligation persists unless the Public Prosecutor certifies that the approver has wilfully concealed essential information or given false evidence, in which case the approver may be tried u/s 308 of the CrPC.

3. The right of the approver to cast away the pardon:
The Court rejected the contention that the approver has the right to cast away the pardon granted to him. It was held that the power to grant pardon includes the right to impose conditions, and the approver must comply with these conditions by making a full and true disclosure of all relevant circumstances. The approver cannot unilaterally withdraw from the pardon until he is examined as a witness by the prosecution.

4. Protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India:
The respondent argued that his evidence as an approver could be used against him in other criminal cases where he is an accused, violating Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The Court held that once an accused is granted pardon u/s 306 of the CrPC, he ceases to be an accused and becomes a prosecution witness. Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, protects the witness from prosecution based on the answers given during testimony, except for prosecution for giving false evidence. Thus, the apprehension of the respondent was deemed baseless.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and order dated April 27, 1987, passed in Revision Petition No. 221 of 1986, and directed that the respondent-approver must be examined as a witness by the prosecution in the trial court.