JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is the reference made by Shri D. R. Tiwari, Additional sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Sehore in accordance with section 395 (2)of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the committal order dated 2-9-1983 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore and for directing the latter to recommit the case to the Sessions Court after strict compliance of the provisions of section 306 ibid in the matter of the accomplice Suresh Rathore, who had been tendered pardon. ( 2. ) IN the commitment-proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial magistrate against the accused persons for the offences under sections 364, 365, 344, 347, 368, 387, 394, 406 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore, vide his order dated 4-10-1982 acting on the application filed by the prosecution had tendered pardon to the accused Suresh Rathore on condition of his making true disclosure of the facts and circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and after this, the case was committed on 2-9-1983 to the Court of Sessions. ( 3. ) THE learned Sessions Judge, vide his order under reference has pointed out that the committing Magistrate viz. the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not followed the prescribed procedure in the matter of tender of pardon to the approver Suresh Rathore due to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 306 of the Code. Therefore, this reference is made for quashing the Chief Judicial Magistrates commitment order dated 2-9-1983 and for seeking further directions of this Court for getting the proper compliance to be made by the Chief judicial Magistrate in the matter of proceedings under section 306 ibid. ( 4. ) THE learned Deputy Government Advocate and so also the learned counsel for the accused persons have both conceded that the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Sehore had not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 306 of the Code and as such the reference as made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be accepted. ( 5. ( 4. ) THE learned Deputy Government Advocate and so also the learned counsel for the accused persons have both conceded that the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Sehore had not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 306 of the Code and as such the reference as made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be accepted. ( 5. ) ON scrutinizing the learned Chief Judicial Magistrates order of commitment and the material order dated 4-10-1982 in the matter of tender of pardon to the accused Suresh Rathore, I find myself in full agreement with the opinion expressed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his reference regarding the illegality committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the matter of tendering of pardon to the accused Suresh Rathore. In the first place, it may be stated that the condition imposed by the Chief judicial Magistrate while tendering pardon, is only half-hearted and incomplete, inasmuch as the condition to be imposed as enjoined by section 306 (1)of the Code requires "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" (emphasis mine ). The parts in italics are the ones which should have been equally incorporated in the condition imposed but are not found to be so incorporated, thus, leaving enough scope for the approver to wriggle out from the binding nature of the condition. To be further accurate, even the section of the offences concerned, should have been mentioned in the condition to be imposed. ( 6. ) THEN again, although the Chief Judicial Magistrate is found to have given his reasons in brief for tendering pardon to the accused / approver suresh Rathore, as enjoined by clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 306 ibid but the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not recorded the fact whether the tender of pardon was or was not accepted by Suresh Rathore, to whom it was made. This omission is not only irregular but also illegal, for the compliance of section 306 (3) (b) is equally mandatory. ( 7. This omission is not only irregular but also illegal, for the compliance of section 306 (3) (b) is equally mandatory. ( 7. ) THEN again, the most glaring illegality committed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, is with regard to non-compliance of clause (a) of subsection (4) of section 306 ibid inasmuch as he has not examined the approver in his Court before committing the case to the Court of Sessions. Mere reliance on the statement under section 464 of the Code was not enough and the statement, as enjoined by section 306 (4) (a) ibid should have been recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. This apart, the accused-persons, as per section 306 (3) ibid, are equally entitled free of cost to the copies of the record pertaining to the tendering and acceptance of pardon with reasons for doing so, together with the statement recorded under section 306 (4) (a) ibid. All this obviously has not been done by the Chief Judicial magistrate whose carelessness and negligence are apparent. ( 8. ) THEREFORE, accepting the reference made by the learned Additional sessions Judge, the order of commitment dated 2-9-1983 is quashed and it is now directed that the record of the case be sent to the Chief Judicial magistrate, Sehore for making compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 306 of the Code in the matter of tender and acceptance of pardon concerning the accused Suresh Rathore whom the prosecution desires to make the approver in the case. After such compliance, the Chief Judicial magistrate shall again commit the case to the Court of Sessions at the earliest for expeditious disposal of the sessions trial. Considering the fact that the accused persons are in judicial custody for the last about two years, all committing proceedings and trial deserve to be expedited and, therefore, it is directed that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore, within a month of the receipt of the records by him, shall commit afresh the case to the Court of Sessions after making requisite compliance of the provisions of section 306 of the Code, and the learned trial Judge also shali expeditiously try and dispose of the case by giving it priority over such other cases where the offences committed are of a period subsequent to the one in the present case. Order accordingly.