JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The present application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the informant. Opposite parties 2 to 4 are facing trial u/s 366/34, Indian Penal Code, in S.T. No. 76-D/90 now pending before the Assistant Sessions Judge. Kamakhyanagar. During the pendency of the matter before the trial Court an application was filed on behalf of the Public Prosecutor for tendering pardon to present opposite party No. 4, one of the accused persons, so that he can be examined as a witness as an approver. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the said accused (present opposite party No. 4) had not made a full and true disclosure of the facts and had not implicated himself in the case. Criminal Revision No. 74/91 filed by the State before the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, was rejected. 2. During the pendency of the revision before the Sessions Judge, an affidavit of accused Satrughan Jena was filed wherein the accused had purported to give a true and full account of the incident. However, the Sessions Judge observed that the affidavit filed long after the impugned order passed by trial Court was not a matter to be considered for the purpose of examining the legality of the order of the trial Court. 3. The present application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, is almost in the nature of a second revision. I do not find any material illegality in the order passed by the trial Court so as to warrant interference in an application u/s 482, specially at the instance of the informant. I, therefore, decline to interfere in the matter. It is, however, made clear that in view of the subsequent affidavit of the accused which was not before the trial Court, when the matter was initially considered, there is no bar for the prosecution to move afresh tendering pardon to the said accused. Accordingly, I dispose of this application with the observation that it would be open to the Public Prosecutor, if so advised, to file a fresh application for tendering pardon to the accused and if such an application is filed, it would be open to the trial Court to consider the same on merit in accordance with law and the fact that an application was earlier filed and rejected would not stand as a bar. The Criminal Misc. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. The lower Court records be sent back immediately.