LODHA, J. (In Chamber)—The Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar has made this reference for quashing the commitment of Mastansingh son of Ajabsingh by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Karanpur, (vide his order dated 20th August, 1967) to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar for trial under S. 302/34, I.P.C., along with other accused. Mastansingh was tendered pardon under S. 337, Cr.P.C. by the District Magistrate, Ganganagar by his order dt. 1-7-1967 and he was made an approver in the case. The learned Public Prosecutors made an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar to whom the case had been transferred for trial to the effect that the commitment of Mastansingh was illegal and should be set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, therefore recommended that the order of commitment of Mastan Singh be set aside. It appears that the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Karan-pur did not interpret correctly the provisions of S. 337(2A), Criminal Procedure Code which is reproduced below for ready reference:— "337(2A)—In every case where a person has accepted a tender of pardon and has been examined under sub-sec. (2), the Magistrate before whom the proceedings are pending shall, if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of an offence, commit him for trial to the Court of Sessions or High Court, as the case may be." 2. This sub section does not mean that the approver should be committed to trial along with the accused persons for the word "person" used in the sub-section has reference to approver as contra-distinguished from "accused" which refers to person accused other than the approver.. The circumstances in which an approver can be committed and trial and the procedure to be adopted in such cases are referred to in secs.339 & 339-A, Cr.P.C. The committal of the approver along with the accused in the present case is illegal and S. 337(2A) does not authorise such a committal. Undoubtedly in the present case there is no allegation that Mastan Singh has not complied with the condition on which he was tendered pardon and therefore the question of committing him and trying him for the offence in respect of which the pardon was tendered to him does not arise. Undoubtedly in the present case there is no allegation that Mastan Singh has not complied with the condition on which he was tendered pardon and therefore the question of committing him and trying him for the offence in respect of which the pardon was tendered to him does not arise. Secs.339 and 339(A) Cr.P.C. have therefore no application to the present case and the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Karanpur clearly committed an error of law in committing Mastansingh for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. 3. I, therefore, accept this reference and hereby set aside the order of commitment of Mastansingh dated 218 1967. The learned Additional Sessions judge, Ganganagar is directed to proceed with the trial of the accused other than the approver Mastansingh.