JUDGMENT Petitioners 1 and 2 are accused 2 and 3 in C.C. No. 43 of 1980, on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. They are partners of the 1st accused-firm. A-4 and A-5 were Chartered Accountants looking after the income-tax proceedings of A-1 to A-3. A-6 is a Lower Division Clerk working in the Income-tax Department. The complaint was filed against these several accused by the concerned Income-tax Officer alleging various offences under sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act and sections 107, 120-B, 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code. The 5th accused Mr. R. R. Vaidya was, however, concerned only with section 120-B, Indian Penal Code. Immunity from prosecution was given to the 5th accused under section 291 of the Income-tax Act. When the complainant wanted to examine Mr. Vaidya as a prosecution witness, the 6th accused expressed objection for examining the said Mr. Vaidya as a witness but the petition filed by A-6 expressing such objection was dismissed by the Special Judge by his order, dated 1st July, 1982. Again, when Mr. Vaidya was sought to be examined as a prosecution witness, the two petitioners filed Crl.M.P. No. 3103 of 1982, requesting the Special Judge to proceed under the Criminal Procedure Code and supply copies to them before Mr. Vaidya is examined as a witness. The learned Special Judge dismissed the application being of the view that the provisions of section 306, Criminal Procedure Code, do not apply in the case of a person to whom immunity under section 291 of the Income-tax Act was given. 2. Section 291 of the Income-tax Act runs as follows (Only material portions extracted): “(1) The Central Government may, if it is of the opinion (the reasons for such opinion being recorded in writing) that with a view to obtaining evidence of any person appearing to have been directly or indirectly concerned in the evasion of payment of tax on income, it is necessary so to do tender to such person immunity from prosecution for any offence under this Act or under the Indian Penal Code on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances relating to the evasion of payment of tax on income. (2) A tender of immunity made to, and accepted by, the person concerned, shall, render him immune from prosecution for any offence in respect of which the tender was made. (3) If it appears to the Central Government that any person to whom immunity has been tendered under this section has not complied with the condition on which the tender was made or is wilfully concealing anything or is giving false evidence, the Central Government may record a finding to that effect, and thereupon the immunity shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, and any such person may be tried for the offence in respect of which the tender of immunity was made.” Section 306, Criminal Procedure Code, provides (only material portions extracted) : “(1) With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, at any stage of the trial of the offence, may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and a true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, in the commission thereof. (3) Every Magistrate who tenders a pardon shall record his reasons for so doing, 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 records free of cost.” Section 308, Criminal Procedure Code, provides for the trial of the person who has not complied with conditions of pardon. 3. A comparative reading of these provisions brings to the forefront of the following differences. In case of tender of pardon under section 306, Criminal Procedure Code, every accused is entitled to copies of records of the proceedings leading to the tender of pardon. No similar provision is found in a case where immunity from prosecution was tendered under section 291 of the Income-tax Act. The power to tender pardon under section 306, Criminal Procedure Code and the power to tender immunity from prosecution under section 291 of the Income-tax Act is to be exercised by the different authorities specified therein. The petitioners are, therefore, not correct in requesting the Magistrate to proceed against Mr. Vaidya under the provisions of section 306, Criminal Procedure Code. The power to tender pardon under section 306, Criminal Procedure Code and the power to tender immunity from prosecution under section 291 of the Income-tax Act is to be exercised by the different authorities specified therein. The petitioners are, therefore, not correct in requesting the Magistrate to proceed against Mr. Vaidya under the provisions of section 306, Criminal Procedure Code. That request was rightly negatived by the learned Special Judge. 4. It is submitted that Mr. Vaidya who was an accused cannot at all be examined as a witness for the complainant. Reliance is placed on Desai Digarnbar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 2 An.W.R. 579 in support of this submission. That was a case where without recourse to section 306, Criminal Procedure Code, the prosecution wanted to examine one of the accused as a witness for the prosecution. Such an attempt was discountenanced. That decision cannot be an authority for submitting that even if pardon or immunity was granted to an accused, that accused cannot be examined to prove the prosecution case. 5. In the application which was negatived by the learned Special Judge, the request was also made to supply copies to the petitioners before Mr. Vaidya is examined as a witness and it is stated that otherwise the petitioners would be gravely prejudiced in their trial. Section 291 of the Income-tax Act does not, of course, provide for the grant of copies of proceedings leading to the immunity from prosecution tendered to Mr. Vaidya. Before, however, Mr. Vaidya is to be examined as a prosecution witness, the prosecution must make available for inspection of the accused and their Counsel, the statement leading to the immunity from prosecution tendered to Mr. Vaidya as otherwise the petitioners will be handicapped in cross-examining Mr. Vaidya with reference to the statement which he may have earlier made before the authorities concerned while granting su:h immunity to Mr. Vaidya. It is, therefore, directed that the complainant should make available to the accused and their Counsel for their inspection such statement and it is only after giving such inspection of the proceedings Mr. Vaidya may be examined, allowing the accused to contradict Mr. Vaidya on any statement earlier made by him before the Department. 6. Mr. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the power under section 291 of the Income-tax Act offends Article 14 of the Constitution. Vaidya may be examined, allowing the accused to contradict Mr. Vaidya on any statement earlier made by him before the Department. 6. Mr. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the power under section 291 of the Income-tax Act offends Article 14 of the Constitution. According to him, no guide lines are provided for the exercise of the power under section 291 in choosing one of the several of the accused in whose favour the immunity from prosecution was tendered and the absence of such guide lines leads to unbridled exercise of power and section 291 of the Income-tax Act should be struck down as violating Article 14 of the Constitution. I do not find any substance in this submission. As in section 306, Criminal Procedure Code, the immunity from prosecution could be tendered to any person who, in the view of the Central Government would give evidence in proof of the offences in question. It is not the petitioner's case that they have made any statements in proof of the prosecution case and claimed immunity from prosecution and offered to figure as a witness for the complainant. The Central Government cannot, in the nature of things, be expected to give an opportunity to each of the accused to make statements in proof of the prosecution case. There will then be no accused left to be proceeded against for the trial of the offences. The Government has, therefore, the discretion to choose one of the accused to figure as a witness to prove its case. So far as Mr. Vaidya is concerned, he is concerned only with the offence under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and section 291 of the Income-tax Act is not, therefore, susceptible to any attack made against it as violating Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. The revision is accordingly allowed in part into the limited extent of directing the complainant to allow inspection the statement of Mr. Vaidya leading to the immunity of prosecution tendered to him a day before Mr. Vaidya is examined as a witness for the complainant. The revision in other respects is dismissed. R.S.R. ----- Revision allowed in part.