( 1 ) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 31-5-2001 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Budaun, on Sessions Trial No. 217 of 1990 under Section 302, I. P. C. not convicting the opposite party No. 2 Anar Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story, briefly stated, was that on 11-4-1989 Nem Chand aged about 10-11 years son of the applicant had gone to graze goats along with Anar Singh opposite party No. 2 as usual. He did not return to his house on the said day. The goats also did not return. The applicant started searching for him, but he could not be traced. On 12-4-1989 when the applicant was again searching for his son along with some other persons of the village, the opposite party No. 2 and one Ram Kumar were jointly seen in a wheat crop. Observing the applicant and other persons Raj Kumar left the spot. The complainant and other enquired from Anar Singh, opposite party No. 2 about Nem Chand and his goats. Then he said that goats of Nem Chand had damaged crops of Raj Kumar, therefore, Raj Kumar along with him took Nem Chand in arhar field, where he murdered him by causing knife injury and pressing his neck with lathi and sold his goats to compensate his loss. Accordingly, report was lodged by the applicant and a case under Section 302, I. P. C. was registered against Raj Kumar and Anar Singh, opposite party No. 2. ( 3 ) THE Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom the case was pending for committal granted pardon to the opposite party No. 2, as he became witness of the prosecution. Accordingly, his case was not committed to the Court of Session. The case of Raj Kumar was committed to the Court of Session. ( 4 ) BEFORE the Sessions Court the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses including Anar Singh, opposite party No. 2 as PW 1. On the basis of direct evidence of Anar Singh (PW 1) and other circumstantial evidence, learned Sessions Judge convicted Raj Kumar under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000. 00. ( 5 ) THE applicant has preferred this revision against the said order not convicting the opposite party No. 2. 10,000. 00. ( 5 ) THE applicant has preferred this revision against the said order not convicting the opposite party No. 2. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and perused the record. ( 7 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicant was that the opposite party No. 2 though had been granted pardon and had given evidence against Raj Kumar as a prosecution witness, but had equally implicated himself and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge committed illegality in not convicting him. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, the opposite party No. 2 was granted pardon under Section 306, Cr. P. C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sections 306 and 307, Cr. P. C. which deal with tender of pardon read as under :- "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 into, 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 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 severe 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. (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 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; (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 the offence, shall, without making any further inquiry in the case,- (a) commit it for trial - (i) 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; (b) In any other case, make over the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall try the case himself. 307. Power to direct tender of pardon.- At any time after commitment of a case but before judgment is passed, the Court to which the commitment is made may, with a view to obtaining at the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offence, tender a pardon on the same condition to such person. " ( 9 ) IN this case, pardon was granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 306, Cr. P. C. The object of tendering pardon as contained in Section 306, Cr. P. C. is with a view to obtaining evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence for 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. The object of the provision is to allow pardon to be tendered in cases where grave offence is alleged to have been committed by several persons, so that with the aid of the evidence of the person pardoned, the offence could be brought book to the rest. This object is to secure the evidence of such a person. ( 10 ) THE effect of tendering pardon has been considered by the Full Bench of Apex Court in the case of A. J. Peiris v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 616 . It was held in paragraph 9 of the said case as below :- "we think that the moment the pardon was tendered to the accused he must be presumed to have been discharged whereupon he ceased to be an accused and became a witness. " ( 11 ) THIS aspect was also considered by the Apex Court in a recent decision in the case of Jasbir Singh v. Vipin Kumar Jaggi (2001) 6 JT (SC) 419 and it was held in paragraph 29 of the said case as below :- "the object of Section 64 N. D. P. S. Act being the same as Section 307, Cr. P. C. it should logically follow that it may be exercised at any time during the course of the trial. It is true that the words immunity from prosecution have been used, but the phrase does not mean anything more than the power to withdraw from prosecution. That, as has been noted earlier, can be exercised at any time in the course of the trial, but before judgment is delivered. " ( 12 ) THUS, it is clear that when pardon is tendered to an accused on the condition of his making full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other persons concerned, whether as principal or abettor in the commission thereof, he shall be discharged, if the case has not been committed and charges have not been framed and if charges framed, his prosecution shall not proceed. ( 13 ) IN the instant case, it is clear from the order that since opposite party No. 2 was tendered pardon, his case was not committed to the Court of Session by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. ( 13 ) IN the instant case, it is clear from the order that since opposite party No. 2 was tendered pardon, his case was not committed to the Court of Session by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. If the applicant was in any way aggrieved with the order of tendering pardon, he would have agitated against the said order. But he has not done so. When the case of opposite party No. 2 was not committed, as he was granted pardon he was in fact not tried. Therefore, question of his conviction in this case did not arise. ( 14 ) THE revision is, therefore, misconceived, devoid of any force and is liable to be dismissed summarily. ( 15 ) THE revision is, accordingly, dismissed summarily. Revision dismissed. . .