Judgment 1. This petition has been filed on behalf of Dipesh Chandak for quashing the entire proceedings including the order dated 6/ 7/06/2000 passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 157(C) of 2000, whereby the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of the case for the offences under Secs. 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against accused Dipesh Chandak and for the offence under Sec. 277 of the said Act against accused Hitesh Chandak, Mahavir Prasad Chandak, Mohan Lal Chandak and N. K. Chitlangia. The complaint case bearing No. 157(C) of 2000 had been filed in the Court of Special Judge Economic Offences, Patna by Union of India through the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Patna against the above five accused persons for commission of the offences punishable under Secs. 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. The assessee accused Dipesh Chandak was a supplier of Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar who is accused in different cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation for misappropriation of funds of Animal Husbandry Department. The petitioner Dipesh Chandak had made confessional statement under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna where the cases relating to Animal Husbandry Department were proceeding. In his statement under Sec. 164 of the Code Dipesh Chandak had admitted his dubious role in misappropriation of funds and fraudulent withdrawals from the State exchequer against fake bills for supply to Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar in connivance with the officials of the said Department. It was noticed that Sri Dipesh Chandak had categorically admitted that during the period from 1987 to 1994 he had prepared fake bills of supply to the Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar in the names of different concerns. He had also admitted in his statement that he had prepared fake bills for purchases and documents of transportation to show that the supplies were genuine. It was found that Returns of income filed by Sri Dipesh Chandak and the documents and statements annexed with the Returns for assessment years 1989-90 to 1996-97 in his individual name as well as in the names of his H.U.F. and related concerns were false. It was found that Returns of income filed by Sri Dipesh Chandak and the documents and statements annexed with the Returns for assessment years 1989-90 to 1996-97 in his individual name as well as in the names of his H.U.F. and related concerns were false. In the Returns filed by him, Dipesh Chandak had certified that the contents of the Returns and of annexed documents and statements of accounts were true to the best of his knowledge and belief. A show cause notice dated 27-12-1999 had been issued to Dipesh Chandak by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Patna to show cause as to why prosecution under Secs. 277 and 278 of the I. T. Act, 1961 should not be initiated against him. The assessee Dipesh Chandak had claimed immunity from prosecution under the Income-tax Act on the ground of assurance of pardon by the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna. 3. According to the petitioner, he had not made statement under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but he had made the statement under Sec. 306 of the Code. On 7-8-1998 the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna recorded the disclosures made by the petitioner which continued up to 12-8-1998. The requirements of Secs. 306 and 307 of the Code were complied with and the Special Judge, C.B.I. granted pardon to the petitioner on 28-8-1998. Photo copy of the order dated 7-8-1998 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna is Annexure 2 of the petition. According to Annexure 2 a petition had been filed on behalf of Dipesh Chandak before the Special Judge, C.B.I. to allow him to become an approver in the case by according him pardon in that case. After hearing the parties the learned Special Judge had found it just and proper to record the statement of Dipesh Chandak. It has been mentioned in Annexure 2 that Dipesh Chandak had submitted before the Special Judge that he had been directly concerned with the offences in the case and whole circumstances relating to the offences is within his knowledge and he wanted to become an approver to make full and true disclosure of the circumstances within his knowledge in relation to the case. He had also submitted before the learned Special Judge that he had made his statement under Sec. 164 of the Code and on its basis he wants to make full and true disclosure and thus his statement should be recorded for consideration of his prayer for allowing him to be an approver in the case by according him pardon. The learned Special Judge has also mentioned in his order that he finds just and proper that his statement be recorded before passing any order in this regard. 4. It is apparent that the petitioner Dipesh Chandak had made statement regarding disclosures on the basis of his earlier statement made under Sec. 164 of the Code. 5. A supplementary affidavit had been filed on behalf of the petitioner annexing the copy of the order dated 28-8-1998 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna as Annexure 5. According to order dated 28-8-1998 consequent upon the filing of a petition by Dipesh Chandak with a prayer to allow him to be an approver in the case by according him pardon and his willingness for recording of his statement in this regard, his statement had been recorded by the Special Judge, C.B.I. and in his petition and statement Dipesh Chandak had revealed facts that he has been directly concerned and in privy with the offences covered under the case and has knowledge of entire circumstances relating to offences and every persons concerned in commission of the offence. The Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna has mentioned in his order that in the ends of justice for obtaining evidence of Dipesh Chandak he is tendering him pardon on condition of his making full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offences and every other persons concerned, whether as principal or abettor in the commission thereof in terms of Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It has also been mentioned in the said order that Dipesh Chandak who was present in Court had accepted the conditional pardon so tendered and in token of his acceptance of his conditional pardon, he was ready to put his signature by making necessary endorsement. It also appears from the endorsement made on the margin of the order-sheet dated 28-8-1998 that Dipesh Chandak had accepted the conditional pardon. 6. It also appears from the endorsement made on the margin of the order-sheet dated 28-8-1998 that Dipesh Chandak had accepted the conditional pardon. 6. The above facts show that the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna had tendered conditional pardon to Dipesh Chandak which had been accepted by him. 7. According to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, he had preferred an appeal against the assessment order and by the order dated 24-10-2000 the appellate authority had allowed the appeal. A photo copy of the order dated 24-10-2000 is Annexure 6 of the supplementary affidavit. Annexure 6 shows that it was in respect of the assessment year 1991-92. 8. It is relevant to mention here that the complaint case has been filed against the petitioner Dipesh Chandak and others by the Union of India through the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1, Patna in respect to the Returns filed for the years 1988-89 to 1996-97. 9. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, Union of India. According to the respondent the petitioner was supplier of Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar and he is named accused in various criminal cases filed by the C.B.I. in connection with misappropriation of funds from Animal Husbandry Department and during investigation of the criminal cases, Dipesh Chandak had made a confessional statement before the Special Judge A.H.D., C.B.I., Patna on 12-8-1998 under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he had admitted his dubious role in misappropriation of funds and fraudulent withdrawals of the State exchequer against fake bills of supply to the Animal Husbandry Department. Bihar in connivance with the officials of the Animal Husbandry Department. Dipesh Chandak had deliberately and knowingly filed false Return of income by falsifying accounts. The criminal charge against the petitioner under the Income-tax Act is in no way connected with the grant of pardon tendered to Dipesh Chandak by the Special Court of the C.B.I. Under Sec. 291 of the Income-tax Act, the Central Government only has power to grant immunity from prosecution whereas under Sec. 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Chief Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate has power to tender pardon and the Central Government has not granted immunity from prosecution under the Income-tax Act. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna has been subjected to appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Sec. 253 of the Act. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna has been subjected to appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Sec. 253 of the Act. Further according to the respondent the complaint contains specific allegations against the petitioner about filing of false returns of income and abetment and inducement of Dipesh Chandak knowing full well that the Returns and the annexed statements of account were false. 10. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has been declared an approver and under Sec. 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, his position and status has changed as that of a witness and approver. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sec. 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure puts complete embargo on any criminal proceeding against approver. He also contended that Sec. 306 of the Code has some ingredients of Halsburys Laws of England. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that by virtue of the statement made by the petitioner and pardon granted to him by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna and his becoming an approver under Sec. 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has acquired immunity from penalties and prosecution arising out from the facts from those statements made by him. 12. It has contended by the learned lawyer for the petitioner that tender of pardon protects the person concerned not only against the offence in respect of which pardon is granted but also from prosecution for any other offence of which he may be guilty in the same matter and he made reference to a decision of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) reported in 1971 Criminal Law Journal 1357. But in the present case the petitioner has been granted conditional pardon. The facts and circumstances of the present case are different. 13. But in the present case the petitioner has been granted conditional pardon. The facts and circumstances of the present case are different. 13. Sec. 306(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that 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. According to Sec. 306(4) of the Code every person accepting a tender of pardon made under Sub-sec. (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. 14. The above provisions show that the object of Sec. 306 of the Code is to obtain true evidence so that an offender may not escape from punishment for want of evidence. Sec. 306 of the Code provides for tender a pardon to such person who is supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence, for obtaining the evidence of that person. The moment an accused is pardoned he becomes a witness. The examination of an approver as a witness of the prosecution during trial is essential. Sec. 306(4)(b) of the Code provides for the detention of such person in custody until the termination of the trial unless that person is already on bail. It appears that this provision has been made in the Code for fulfilling the terms of the pardon as an approver. 15. It was contended by the learned lawyer for the opposite party, Union of India, that the matter relating to assessment order for the assessment year 1991-92 in respect of the petitioner Dipesh Chandak is at present pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 16. 15. It was contended by the learned lawyer for the opposite party, Union of India, that the matter relating to assessment order for the assessment year 1991-92 in respect of the petitioner Dipesh Chandak is at present pending before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 16. It appears from the impugned order dated 6/ 7/06/2000 passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna that official complaint case had been filed on behalf of the Union of India through the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Patna against Sri Dipesh Chandak, Sri Hitesh Chandak, Sri Mahabir Prasad Chandak, Sri Mohan Lal Chandak and Sri N. K. Chitlangia for the offences under Secs. 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the learned Special Judge had found a prima facie case under Secs. 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the accused Dipesh Chandak and a prima facie case under Sec. 277 of the said Act against the accused Hitesh Chandak, Mahabir Prasad Chandak, Mohan Lal Chandak and N. K. Ghitlangia and accordingly he had taken cognizance of the offences in the case against the above accused persons. 17. It is relevant to mention here that one of the accused Dipesh Chandak is the petitioner in this Criminal Miscellaneous, which has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of the complaint case including the order by which cognizance of the offences has been taken in the case against all the above accused persons. In his order dated 7-8-1998 the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna has mentioned that considering the facts and circumstances of the matter as well as the fact that Dipesh Chandak intends to make a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his knowledge in relation to the offences and is ready and willing to make statement in the Court, he (Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna) finds just and proper that his statement be recorded before passing any order in this regard. Admittedly Dipesh Chandak had accepted the conditional pardon so tendered and in token of his acceptance of the conditional pardon he had put his signature by making necessary endorsement. Admittedly Dipesh Chandak had accepted the conditional pardon so tendered and in token of his acceptance of the conditional pardon he had put his signature by making necessary endorsement. The petitioner was supplier of Animal Husbandry Department, Bihar and he is named accused in various Criminal Cases filed by the C.B.I. in connection with the misappropriation of funds from Animal Husbandry Department and during investigation of the criminal cases, Dipesh Chandak had made a confessional statement before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 18. It was submitted by the learned lawyer for the Union of India that the petitioner is accused in four cases of Fodder Scam and he was allowed to be an approver and he was tendered conditional pardon by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Patna which had been accepted by him. It was also submitted by him that all the cases are still pending for trial. The learned lawyer for the petitioner conceded that all the cases are pending. It is relevant to mention here that conditional pardon was granted to the petitioner for obtaining true evidence and the moment an accused is pardoned he becomes a witness. The related cases are still pending before the appropriate Court. The examination of an approver as a witness of the prosecution during trial is essential and the approver has to fulful his terms of pardon. Until the approver fulfils all the terms of pardon and until the trial of all the concerned cases are concluded and the approver is examined as a witness of the prosecution during trial of the cases, he continues to have his position as an accused. The petitioner cannot claim immunity from prosecution for any offence as he can be put back to his position as an accused if he does not fulfil all the terms and conditions of his pardon and his allowing to be an approver. 19. In the facts and circumstances, there does not appear any reason for interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.