JUDGMENT 1. - Aaftab Ali, the petitioner, has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with section 482 Cr. P.C 1973, against the order of the sessions Judge, Tonk, dated the 9th March, 1979 whereby the order declaring the accused petitioner Aaftab Ali as an approverdated the 1st Nov., 1977 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk was set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the petitioner are as under: One Prahlad son of Shri Nanga Ram lodged a report on January 29, 1974 in Thana Kotwali, Tonk. Prahlad reported that Aaftab Ali and Gulzar Ahmad, agents of Godlen star Art Muglpura, Muradabad came from Muradabad and booked an order on Dec. 26, 1973 for sending the Karnawati set. They took Rs. 25/- in advance for the aforesaid order. It was further alleged that he received a parcel order on January 25, 1974 and when he withdrew the said parcel from Railway Station, Niwai after depositing Rs. 81/- in the Post Office, Tonk, he found stones in it after opening. It was further alleged that the said persons have cheated other persons also of the Tonk City. 3. After Investigation, a challan was filed against Aaftab Ali, Mohammad Ikram and Gulzar Ahmed under Section 420, 406, and 468 I.P.C. on August 25, 1974. 4. The petitioner moved an application on Oct. 27, 1975 praying for obtaining the pardon on the pre-condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in commission thereof. 5. An order was to be passed on December 2, 1975 on the aforesaid application. However, this application was not decided up to Nov. 1,1977 and no orders were passed on this application. The learned lower court decided this application on Nov. 1, 1977 and tendered pardon to the petitioner on the aforesaid condition. 6. The learned trial court also recorded the statement of the petitioner on the same day and posted the case for service of warrant of arrest against Gulzar Ahmed. 7. Against the above order of the Magistrate, Mohd. Ikram, Non petitioner No. 3 filed a revision petition before the sessions Judge, Tonk who accepted the revision petition of Mohd Ikram and quashed the order, dated the 1st Nov., 1977, declaring the petitioner as "approver". 7. Against the above order of the Magistrate, Mohd. Ikram, Non petitioner No. 3 filed a revision petition before the sessions Judge, Tonk who accepted the revision petition of Mohd Ikram and quashed the order, dated the 1st Nov., 1977, declaring the petitioner as "approver". 8. The principal ground given by the learned sessions Judge is that there was number of eye witnesses in the case and the application which was moved in the year 1975 was never accepted till the entire evidence was recorded, arguments were heard and the case was posted for judgment. 9. Mr. Gopal Garg, who has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that the application under Section 306,Cr.P.C , 1973 was made before the evidence commenced and it was the duty of the Court to decide it immediately. If the Court has shirked its duty and allowed the application to languish in the file, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for it. It was pointed out that under Section 306, Cr.P.C. the legislature has used the words, "at any stage" of the investigation or inquiry or trial of offence, which means that the legislature has not restricted limited or put fatters on the right of the court to pardon in relation to the stage of the case. That being so, the finding of the Sessions Judge, that pardon could not have been granted at the end of the trial is against the express provisions of law. It was also argued that there was no evidence other than the evidence of the approver to connect the accused with the crime and, and therefore, it was necessary in the interest of justice to grant pardon to the petitioner, so that the entire prosecution case can be established and the other accused persons can be convicted. 10. Mo one has appeared to oppose this revision petition. Mr. Pareek who was the counsel on behalf of the non-petitioners, has pleaded that he has got no instructions, and the file has been taken by his client. Mr. Heman Das, the learned Public Prosecutor, frankly submitted that it would be in the interest of prosecution if the pardon is granted to Aaftab Ali and he is made approver. 11. Mr. Pareek who was the counsel on behalf of the non-petitioners, has pleaded that he has got no instructions, and the file has been taken by his client. Mr. Heman Das, the learned Public Prosecutor, frankly submitted that it would be in the interest of prosecution if the pardon is granted to Aaftab Ali and he is made approver. 11. Having examined the entire record of the case and after giving thoughtful consideration to the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision must succeed, Undoubtedly, and undisputedly, the petitioner, Aaftab Ali, moved the application for grant of pardon in the year 1975, before the prosecution evidence was examined. If the learned Magistrate allowed the application to languish in the file, it was his inaction and lack of vigilance, for which neither the petitioner, nor the trial of the case, can be allowed to suffer It is not on record, nor it is the finding of the sessions Judge, that the petitioner-approver at any time expressed desire not to press the application. In the absence of that, the petitioner-approver has done and moved the Court within the period prescribed, and he could not compound the Court to decide the application one way or the other, at any stage. That being so, the finding of the Sessions Judge, that the application for grant of pardon and making him an approver could have been accepted in the year 1975 and could not have been accepted in year 1977 appears to be on misunderstanding and mis-appreciation of the requirement of law as contained in Section 306 and the record of the case in which there is no indication, that application of the year 1975 was not pressed by the petitioner at any stage. 12. Under Section 306 the provisions are very wide and specific. Section 306 reads as under:- "306. 12. Under Section 306 the provisions are very wide and specific. Section 306 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 to, or the trial of, the offence, and the Magistrate of the first class 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 or sessions or by the Court of Session or by the Court of a special Judge appointed under the criminal Law amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952): (b) any offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or with a more sever sentence. (3) Every Magistrate who tenders a pardon under Sub-section (1) shall record: (a) his reasons for so doing ; (b) whether the tender was or was not accepted by the person to whom it was made, and shall, on application made by the accused, furnish him with a copy of such record free of cost. (4) Every person accepting a tender of pardon made under subsection (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 ; (b) shall unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. (4) Every person accepting a tender of pardon made under subsection (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 ; (b) shall unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial. (5) Where a person has accepted a tender of pardon made under sub section (1) and has been examined under sub section (4), the Magistrate taking cognizance of that offence shall without; making any further inquiry in the case,- (a) Commit it for trial (1) to the Court of Session if the offence is triable exclusively by that Court or if the Magistrate taking cognizance is the Chief Judicial Magistrate; (ii) to a Court of Special Judge appointed under the criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952), if the offence is triable exclusively by that court ; (b) in any other case, make over the care to the chief Judicial Magistrate who shall try the case himself." 13. The only requirement of the law is that tender must be granted for obtaining evidence and the condition must be that he would make full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence. Sub-clause (3) injuries upon the Magistrate to pus an order in writing at the time of the gran dog of pardon and then examine that approver under sub-clause (4). If the conditions of the tender are not complied with, the legislature has empowered the Magistrate under Section 308, Cr. P.C., to try such persons separately. Section 307, Cr. P.C. further makes it clear that even after commitment, pardon can be granted. The above scheme of the provisions regarding pardon clearly show that in order to obtain evidence, the Magistrate is competent to grant pardon at any stage, and it is not possible to reject the application solely on the ground that the evidence has been recorded though if may have some matter all bearing in a case, where the accused applies for the first time at a very late stage. 14. So far as the present case is concerned, I am convinced that there was no delay, latches or any lapses on the part of the accused-approver he applied initially before the evidence recording commenced. 15. 14. So far as the present case is concerned, I am convinced that there was no delay, latches or any lapses on the part of the accused-approver he applied initially before the evidence recording commenced. 15. The view, which I have taken above, is further fortified by the following observations of the Delhi High Court in M.M. Kochar v. State 1969 AIR (Delhi), P. 2) ; "The fact that the tender and acceptance of pardon was after a great deal of delay or the fact that the accomplice accepted the tender of pardon after he had been ordered by the High Court to be committed for trial along with other accused will be relevant circumstances to determine the weight to be attached to to his testimony." (para 16) "If he has wilfully concealed anything essential or has given false evidence or has not complied with the condition on which the tender was made, he can only be tried in separate proceedings inter alia, for the offence in respect of which the pardon was tendered and this is so provided by Section 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, even if the tender and acceptance of pardon is revisable by the High Court under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure this is not a case in which such power is to be exercised." 16. The view of the learned Sessions Judge that pardon could not be granted because there was no fresh application in the year 1977, is not correct. When the application, dated the 28th October, 1975 was pending and has not been disposed of, no fresh application was necessary. It is also not correct that there was many eye witnesses because a resume and perusal of the entire record of the case could show that the essential requisite of the offence was in the knowledge of Aaftab Ali only and the other witnesses have failed to prove them. I am also of the view that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the accused because once the approver is allowed to give his evidence, then according to the procedure prescribed in the law accused will have full opportunity of cross examining the witnesses. 17. I am also of the view that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the accused because once the approver is allowed to give his evidence, then according to the procedure prescribed in the law accused will have full opportunity of cross examining the witnesses. 17. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granting pardon to the approver, Aaftab Ali under Section 306, Cr. P.C., was just and proper and, therefore, is required to be restored by quashing the order of Sessions Judge. 18. The result is, that this revision petition succeeds and is accepted. The order of Sessions Judge, Tonk, dated the 9th March, 1979, in Criminal Revision No. 2/78, is set aside and that of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, dated the 1st Nov., 1977 in Criminal case No. 1787/74 is restored.Revision accepted. *******