Order.-These are petitions for releasing P.Ws. 1 to 3 who are the approvers in S.C. No. 9 of 1978 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, pending trial of the aforesaid case. Crl.M.P. No. 1539 of 1978 has been filed on behalf of Palaniswami alias Gundu Palani, the approver P.W. 1. Cr.M.P. No. 1540 of 1978 has been filed on behalf of Govindaswami alias Mappillai, the approver P.W. 2 while Crl.M.P. No. 1541 of 1978 has been filed on behalf of Santhanam, the approver P.W. 3. 2. In the affidavit filed by one Marimuthu, who claims to be the brother-in-law of the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 1539 of 1978 it is stated that the approver Palaniswami was arrested in February, 1976 in connection with the murder of one Palaniappan and his son on 24th June, 1974 on the Poolavari Parapatti Road and on 17th April, 1976 a statement under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code was recorded from the approver by the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Rasipuram and on 5th June, 1976 pardon was tendered to him and he was taken as an approver and was examined as P.W. 1 in P.R.C. No. 3 of 1976 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate No. 1 of Salem on 9th May, 1977 and during the course of his testimony he had alleged that he was forced by the police authorities to make a judicial confession and accept the pardon after having been kept under illegal custody for a number of days during which he was subjected to torture, humiliation and threats by the police authorities and he was treated as hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined by the prosecution and on 18th February, 1978 a petition was even presented by the Special Public Prosecutor to arraign him as an accused but it was dismissed and the petitioner has been in custody for over two years and as such he may be released on bail. 3. If the affidavit filed by one Sivagurunathan, who claims to be the son of the petitioner Govindaswami, in Crl. 3. If the affidavit filed by one Sivagurunathan, who claims to be the son of the petitioner Govindaswami, in Crl. M. P. No. 1540 of 1978, it is stated that the petitioner was arrested and kept in illegal custody and subjected to torture and humiliation and forced to give a statement under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code and to accept a pardon and was made to speak to a false version as tutored by the police and when he was examined as P.W. 2 in P.R.C. No. 17 of 1977 on 18th February, 1978 he denied knowledge about this case and stated that the statement under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code was extorted from him under pressure, threat and harassment and he has been in custody for over two years and as such he may be released on bail. In the affidavit filed by one Vasantha, the wife of the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 1541 of 1978 also similar allegations have been made. 4. In the counters filed on behalf of the respondent by the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, C.I.D., Madras on Special Duty it is stated that Palaniswami was arrested in the month of April, 1976 and that the allegations contained in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions are false, and That the two approvers P.Ws. 2 and 3 were not even treated hostile by the prosecution and further the prosecution has yet another opportunity of confronting the approvers with their confessional statements in the Court of Session and the prosecution cannot be deprived of that opportunity and as such until the approvers are put in the witness box in the Court of Session and examined, they would continue to be approvers and witnesses on the side of the prosecution and only after they are so examined at the trial, Public Prosecutor will be enabled to decide about the issuance of a certificate under section 308, Criminal Procedure Code and further according to the mandatory provisions of the Code an approver will not be entitled to be released on bail until the trial is over. 5. It must be noted that the first approver P.W. 1 has been charged with conspiracy as well as for murder while the other two approvers have been charged with criminal conspiracy to commit the murders. 5. It must be noted that the first approver P.W. 1 has been charged with conspiracy as well as for murder while the other two approvers have been charged with criminal conspiracy to commit the murders. Section 306(4), Criminal Procedure Code, states that every person accepting a tender of pardon made under sub-section (1)(a) shall be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, if any, and (b) shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. Section 308 states as follows: “(1) Where, in regard to a person who has accepted a tender of pardon made under section 306 or section 307, the Public Prosecutor certifies that in this opinion such person has, either by wilfully concealing anything essential or by giving false evidence, not complied with the condition on which the tender was made, such person may be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was so tendered or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the same matter, and also for the offence of giving false evidence; Provided that such person shall not be tried jointly with any of the other accused”. 6. Now, in the case of these three approvers, even though they have not deposed before the Committing Magistrate in accordance with their statements recorded under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, a certificate under section 308, Criminal Procedure Code, has not been issued by the Public Prosecutor as yet. Therefore they continue to be approvers and witnesses for the prosecution and have not yet been arraigned as accused, to be tried for the offences committed by them in respect of which pardon had been tendered to them on conditions. 7. The question is whether at this stage these persons can be released on bail merely because they have not before the Committing Magistrate given testimony in accordance with their statements recorded tinder section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, and also because they have been in judicial custody for the last two years. 8. Relying on the decision in Arusami Goundan v. State1and in the State v. Bhoora and others2, Mr. 8. Relying on the decision in Arusami Goundan v. State1and in the State v. Bhoora and others2, Mr. Arunachalam, learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that it is not necessary that the approvers must be examined both in the Court of the Committing Magistrate and in the Sessions Court before it could not held that they have forfeited their pardon and as such even now the Public Prosecutor could issue a certificate under section 308, Criminal Procedure Code. No doubt, according to the aforesaid decision it is so. But then it is not obligatory on the part of the Public Prosecutor to issue a certificate under section 308, Criminal Procedure Code, the moment the approver fails to conform to the condition on which pardon had been granted to him when he was examined before the Committing Magistrate. The learned Public Prosecutor could wait until the approvers are examined at the trial and then decide whether a certificate under section 308, Criminal Procedure Code, has to be issued. 9. The next question is whether the High Court has powers to grant bail to approvers before they are examined at the trial. In Mahomed Abdul Majid v. Emperor3, it has been held that clause (3) of section 337 of Criminal Procedure Code of 1898, should be interpreted as obligatory only on the Magistrate granting him the pardon requiring him to detain the accomplice in custody and as in no way affecting the powers of the superior Courts, but the discretionary powers of superior Court to grant bail to approvers-should be sparingly used. 10. In Karuppa Servai v. Kundaru alias Muniandi Thevan4, however it was held that an approver cannot be put in the same position as an accused and the provisions of sections 497 and 498, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 cannot apply to him and an approver who was not on bail at the time he was tendered the pardon and accepted it, cannot be released on bail in the course of the preliminary inquiry and before the inquiry has ended, and if committal ensures, before he has deposed in the Sessions Court and the trial has concluded. 11. Mr. Arunachalam on behalf of the petitioners however contends that this decision was rendered prior to the decision in Arusami Goundan v. State1, and as such it is the decision of the Division Bench in Arusami Goundan v. State1, which would apply. 11. Mr. Arunachalam on behalf of the petitioners however contends that this decision was rendered prior to the decision in Arusami Goundan v. State1, and as such it is the decision of the Division Bench in Arusami Goundan v. State1, which would apply. But then in Arusami Goundan v. State1, the question as to whether an approver could be released on bail before he is examined at the trial did not arise for consideration. 12. In A.L. Mehra v. State5, it has been observed that the object of requiring an approver to remain in custody until the termination of the trial is not to punish the approver for having agreed to give evidence for the State, but to protect him from the wrath of the confederates he has chosen to expose, to prevent him from the temptation of saving his erstwhile friends and companions and to secure his person to await the judgment of the law; and the provisions relating to bail contained in sections 497 and 498 do not override the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 337, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and hence it is not within the competence of the Court to admit an approver to bail when the law declares in unambiguous language that an approver shall not be released until the decision of the case and that the provisions contained in sub-section (3) of section 337 must be read as an exception to the general provisions contained in sections 497 and 498. 13. In Bhawani Singh v. The State1, it has been observed that section 337(3), Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, is mandatory and it can be given no other meaning except that an approver already detained in custody, cannot be released on bail for the period the trial has not been concluded and even if the termination of the trial takes a long period, the approver will have to be detained in custody. 14. 14. In Emperor v. Shahdino Dhaniparto2, it has been observed that “where an approver after accepting pardon under section 337 denies all knowledge of facts before the Committing Magistrate on account of the threats and influences of the co-accused with whom he was placed in the same prison cell and after being separated from the co-accused makes a full and true disclosure of facts relating to the offence, before the Sessions Court, it cannot be said that the accused has forfeited ,his pardon. When the evidence given by the approver in the Sessions Court is in accordance with the conditions of his pardon and is evidence upon which reliance may very well be placed, then the fact that in the Committing Magistrate’s Court the approver gave false evidence cannot necessarily be taken to be non-compliance with the conditions of pardon”. This decision is in no way inconsistent with the decision in Arusami Goundan v. State3. Therefore even though the approvers now before me do not support the prosecution after accepting the pardon but denied before the Committing Magistrate all knowledge of the facts, they have yet another opportunity to fulfil the conditions of their pardon when they are examined in the Sessions Court and as I have said that even though the Public Prosecutor may even after the approvers had denied knowledge of all facts before the Committing Magistrate issues a certificate under section 308, Criminal Procedure Code, nothing prevents the Public Prosecutor from examining the approvers in the Sessions Court during the trial and then considering the question as to whether a certificate should be issued under section 308, Criminal Procedure Code. 15. Of course, it is not obligatory to examine the approvers before the Sessions Court also before the Public Prosecutor considers the issuance of a certificate under section 308, Criminal Procedure Code, but that does rot mean that the moment that the approvers have denied all knowledge of the facts of the case before the Committing Magistrate the Public Prosecutor is bound to issue such a certificate. Of course, the approvers even before they are examined in the Committing Magistrate’s Court and before they are examined in the trial, could always refuse to give evidence and take the position of an accused. Of course, the approvers even before they are examined in the Committing Magistrate’s Court and before they are examined in the trial, could always refuse to give evidence and take the position of an accused. In Basi Reddy Narappa v. Emperor4, a Division Bench of this Court held that when an accused person rejects the condition of the pardon tendered to him and refuses to give evidence as an approver before he is put into the box, his action does not amount to forfeiture of his pardon so as to make his case fall under section 339, Criminal Procedure Code, and bar his joint trial with other accused persons. The acceptance of the pardon should continue in force till the accused actually gives evidence and then if he forfeits the pardon by not making a full and true disclosure of facts within his knowledge he should be separately tried. 16. Taking all these factors into consideration I find that this is not the stage at which these approvers should be released on bail. Hence these petitions are dismissed.