ORDER : Prayer: 1. The instant petition is directed against the Order dated15.06.2024 passed by AJC XVI-cum-Learned Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi in Misc. Cr. Application No. 1286/2023 arising out of Special NIA Case No. 01 of 2017, RC Case No. 11/2017/NIA/DLI by which the application filed under Section 306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. At the outset it needs to refer herein that the full Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.12.2022 passed in B.A. No. 5937 of 2022 while taking in consideration the various provisions of the UAPA Act, 1967 and NIA Act, 2008 as also considering the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Bikramjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 616 has observed that since the offence emanates from Schedule-I of the NIA Act, 2008, will be scheduled offences and triable exclusively by the Special Courts and as such, the decision since is to be passed either by way of a judgment, sentence or order, admittedly order not being in the nature of interlocutory, the same will be amenable under the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court to be heard by the Division Bench of the High Court as would appear from Section 21(1)(2) of the NIA Act, 2008. 3. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala and Others Vs. Roopesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3099 has again observed that any order passed by the learned Special Court, not being an interlocutory order, is subjected to appeal before the High Court and to be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the High Court. 4. It needs to refer herein that earlier the instant petition has been listed before the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court wherein vide order dated 20.09.2024 it has been observed that since the matter is related to the National Investigating Agency Act, it be placed before the appropriate Division Bench. Accordingly, vide minutes dated 22.10.2024, Hon’ble the Chief Justice has assigned the instant petition before the regular Division Bench. Factual Matrix: 5. in the aforesaid backdrop, we are now adverting to the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, vide minutes dated 22.10.2024, Hon’ble the Chief Justice has assigned the instant petition before the regular Division Bench. Factual Matrix: 5. in the aforesaid backdrop, we are now adverting to the facts of the instant case. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under: The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that Bundu P.S. Case No. 65 of 2008 was instituted on 09.07.2008 under Sections 302, 379, 120B and 34 of the IPC, 1860 and under Section 27 of Arms Act and under Section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 against unknown persons for assassination of the then sitting MLA Sri Ramesh Singh Munda. On the basis of investigation 3 charge sheets were submitted by the State Police and later on the matter was investigated by Crime Investigation Department (CID). The investigation was thereafter taken up by National Investigating Agency (NIA) and the case was re-registered as R.C. 11/2017/NIA/DLI on 30.06.2017. Thereafter NIA submitted its 3 rd Supplementary Charge Sheet being Charge Sheet No. 08/18 dated 31.03.2018 against the petitioner and others under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the IPC, 1860 under Sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and under Section 25(1)(b) of Arms Act. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused being Accused No. 17. 6. The petitioner when came out from the judicial custody by virtue of the Order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Order dated 13.12.2023 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1895 of 2023 has made an application under Section 306(4)(a) of Cr.P.C allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the approvers who have been made as prosecution witness i.e P.W.-1 and P.W.2. The said application was rejected by the impugned order dated 15.06.2024 against which the present Cr.M.P. has been preferred. 7. The ground has been taken that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law reason being that the vital opportunity to cross-examine the approvers turned prosecution witness P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have been denied which is contrary to the mandate as provided under Section 306(4)(a) of Cr.P.C. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 8. 7. The ground has been taken that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law reason being that the vital opportunity to cross-examine the approvers turned prosecution witness P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have been denied which is contrary to the mandate as provided under Section 306(4)(a) of Cr.P.C. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner: 8. Learned counsel has submitted that the statutory command as provided under Section 306(4)(a) of Cr.P.C has not been followed which goes to the root of the fairness and transparency in the trial and even though such application was made to follow the statutory command but the same has not been considered in the right perspective and said application has been rejected against which the present petition has been preferred. It has been contended that merely on the ground of the evidence of the approvers, there cannot be any conviction. Submission of the learned counsel for the Opp. Party: 9. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and thereby has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order. 10. He has referred to the content of the order passed by the Learned Special Judge, NIA which is available at Page 178 wherefrom it is evident that the ample opportunity was given to the present petitioner which has fully been availed by him while cross- examining the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, the approvers. The same has also been taken note in the impugned order and as such it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that the statutory command as provided under Section 306(4)(a) of Cr.P.C has not been followed. 11. It has been contended that the only reason for filing the instant petition is to delay the trial and in one way or other way. The learned trial Court has taken into consideration the statutory provision and by incorporating the same by taking it from the day-to-day order sheets, finding has been given that both the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, the approvers have been cross-examined at length by the petitioner. The cross- examination of P.W.1 which was done on day-to-day basis till 08.01.2019. Further the cross-examination of P.W.-2 by the petitioner was finally concluded on 24.05.2019. 12. The cross- examination of P.W.1 which was done on day-to-day basis till 08.01.2019. Further the cross-examination of P.W.-2 by the petitioner was finally concluded on 24.05.2019. 12. It has further been contended that after lapse of about more than four years, such petition has been filed which itself indicates that the instant petition is nothing but only a technique to prolong the trial, therefore, the impugned order which is under challenge in this petition cannot be said to suffer from an error and therefore present petition may be dismissed. Analysis: 13. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and gone through the finding recorded by Learned Trial Court in the Impugned Judgment as also the argument advanced on behalf of the parties. 14. in the instant petition the fact about the question of fairness and transparency has been raised by the petitioner by alleging that the sufficient opportunity has not been provided to him to cross-examine the approvers, P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 . 15. This Court is not in dispute that the principle of criminal jurisprudence, is based upon the principle of fairness and transparency, meaning thereby that the accused person so long is not being convicted will be said to be innocent on the principle of presumption of innocence and to defend innocence of such accused person, a full opportunity to defend himself is to be provided by the court concerned. A similar right has also been provided to the prosecution to get the charge proved and for the aforesaid purpose, a mechanism has been provided in the Cr. P.C. as under Section 306 to declare an accomplice to be an approver. For ready reference, provision of Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. is being referred hereinbelow:- “306. A similar right has also been provided to the prosecution to get the charge proved and for the aforesaid purpose, a mechanism has been provided in the Cr. P.C. as under Section 306 to declare an accomplice to be an approver. For ready reference, provision of Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. is being referred hereinbelow:- “306. 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. (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. (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; (ii) to a Court of Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952), if the offence is triable exclusively by that Court; (b) in any other case, make over the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall try the case himself.” 16. The status of the approver is also as a witness to support the prosecution version subject to the true disclosure which is to be given by such witness. The care has also been taken by inserting the provision under Section 306 (4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. by providing a vital right to the defence to cross-examine such witness. 17. The present petitioner who is an accused being Accused No. 17 and facing the trial was in custody upto 13.12.2023. The cross- examination of the said witness i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 by the petitioner, has already been concluded on 08.01.2019 and24.05.2019. 18. The petitioner has preferred an application filed under Section 306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. raising the grievance that he has not been allowed to cross-examine the approver i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 thereby a statutory right conferred to the accused as provided under Section306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. has been denied. 19. 18. The petitioner has preferred an application filed under Section 306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. raising the grievance that he has not been allowed to cross-examine the approver i.e. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 thereby a statutory right conferred to the accused as provided under Section306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. has been denied. 19. The NIA has contested the said application and has taken the plea by negating the ground taken of not providing an opportunity to cross-examine the P.W.-1 and P.W.2, the two approvers rather by pointing out the fact that one Ram Mohan Singh Munda who has been made approver cited as P.W.-1 had been cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner, Gopal Krishna Patar @ Raja Peter on day to day basis till 08.01.2019, thereafter another pardon accused Santosh Burma @ Tipru Burma had been examined as P.W.-2 on 21.02.2019 whose examination-in-chief was concluded on 28.02.2019 and thereafter his cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner started which was finally concluded on 24.05.2019. 20. The learned Special Judge has considered the aforesaid fact from the order sheets and on consideration of the aforesaid, has rejected the said petition on the ground that ample opportunity to cross-examination of the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, both the approver have been given to the petitioner. The aforesaid order is hereby challenged by way of filing of the instant petition. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no ample opportunity had been given to cross-examine the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, the approvers. 22. We are conscious that the power as conferred to this Court is inherent in nature but the same is to be exercised by interfering in the decision taken by the concerned Court who is in the seisin of the matter herein learned Special Judge who is exercising the power in view of its jurisdiction under Section 11 of NIA Act, 2008 is to consider the propriety of the order and if it is found that there is error apparent on the face of it or the finding is erroneous and contrary to the record, then certainly such order needs to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power. 23. This Court based upon the aforesaid premise has proceeded to examine the propriety of the order passed by the Learned Special Judge which is impugned in the instant petition. 24. 23. This Court based upon the aforesaid premise has proceeded to examine the propriety of the order passed by the Learned Special Judge which is impugned in the instant petition. 24. The sole ground taken of non-observance of the statutory right conferred under Section 306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C to the petitioner/ accused, by depriving him to cross-examine the said approvers who have been cross-examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. There is no denial that any witness even the approver who have been considered to be witness by the prosecution are required to be cross-examined for the purpose of providing the opportunity to defend so as to follow the principal of fairness and transparency in the trial by giving ample opportunity to the accused to prove its innocence. 25. The provision of Section 306(4)(a) is also with the same intent. The question of non-observance of the provision of Section 306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. is the bone of contention in assailing the impugned order. 26. We in order to consider the aforesaid contention have gone through the impugned order and found that the learned Special Judge has considered the aforesaid issue and by taking note from the different order sheet of the different dates as incorporated in the impugned order that the prosecution witness P.W.-1 namely Ram Mohan Singh Munda and P.W.-2 namely Santosh Burma @ Tipru Burma who have been made approvers by the prosecution in view of the provision of Section 306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C., after their examination-in-chief, had been put to cross-examination by the accused persons including the present petitioner also who is also one of the accused. 27. It is evident from the impugned order that P.W.-1 had been allowed to be cross-examined by the petitioner on day-to-day basis till 08.01.2019 thereafter another pardon accused Santosh Burma @ Tipru Burma had also been allowed to cross-examine by the petitioner which was finally concluded on 24.05.2019. For ready reference the relevant portion of the aforesaid impugned order dated15.06.2024 is being quoted as under: I have gone through the case record it appears that Ram Mohan Singh Munda and Santosh Munda @ Tipru Burma are accused in this case. For ready reference the relevant portion of the aforesaid impugned order dated15.06.2024 is being quoted as under: I have gone through the case record it appears that Ram Mohan Singh Munda and Santosh Munda @ Tipru Burma are accused in this case. During course of investigation, they were taken on police remand vide order dated 11.09.2017 and 08/09/2017 respectively, during police remand they confessed their guilt and ready to make disclosure about the entire conspiracy, their role and role of other accused persons in murder of ex-MLA Ramesh Singh Munda two of the police personnel and one school boy. Accordingly on the prayer of NIA their confessional statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C was recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First class, on 23/09/2017. On the basis of confessional statement of PW1 Ram Mohan Singh Munda and PW2 Santosh Munda @ Tipru Burma on the prayer of IO, in order to collect important piece of evidence to endure the conviction of main culprits/co-accused persons involved in large scale conspiracy in an organised manner in heinous crime of murder in lawful manner based on solid evidence. On 23/11/2017 accomplish accused PW1 Ram Mohan Singh Munda and PW2 Santosh Munda @ Tipru Burma were produced before court through video conferencing and both clearly submitted to court that they are ready to accept tender of pardon on condition that they will unreveal entire truth in this offence so that guilt of other accused persons concerned in commission of crime could be brought home. Accordingly, ld special Judge, NIA find prayer of NIA true and genuine in the light of submission of accomplish in presence of their respective counsels and they were shown their readiness and willingness to accept tender of pardon with condition that they will make a full and true disclosure of whole circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence. Accordingly, prayer was allowed and NIA was permitted to examine accused accomplish Ram Mohan Singh Munda and Santosh Munda @ Tipru Burma as approver. Hence, their respective statements u/s 306 Cr. P.C was recorded on same date. Thereafter, I.O submitted chargesheet on completion of investigation against altogether 15 accused persons showing Ram Mohan Singh Munda (A8) and Santosh Munda @ Tipru Burma (A11) have been tendered pardon and made approvers, accordingly they were not charge sheeted. Hence, their respective statements u/s 306 Cr. P.C was recorded on same date. Thereafter, I.O submitted chargesheet on completion of investigation against altogether 15 accused persons showing Ram Mohan Singh Munda (A8) and Santosh Munda @ Tipru Burma (A11) have been tendered pardon and made approvers, accordingly they were not charge sheeted. Prosecution examined accused Ram Mohan Singh Munda as PW1 on 25.9.2018and 26.09.2018 and his cross-examination on behalf of petitioner Raja Peter was done on day-to-day basis till 08/01/2019, thereafter another pardoned accused Santosh Burma @ Tipru Burma examined before court as PW2 on 21.02.2019. his examination in chief was concluded on 28/02/2019 and thereafter his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons started. Petitioner was given ample opportunity to cross-examine PW2. His cross-examination by petitioner Raja Peter was finally concluded on 24/05/2019. 28. It is evident from the reference of the date of the cross- examination of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 whose cross-examination has been concluded on 08.01.2019 and 24.05.2019 respectively. Further It is stated that the application so filed under Section 306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. said to be filed sometime there in 2019 but the said application was misplaced therefore, the fresh application was filed in the year 2023 and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. 29. This Court considering the said conduct of the present petitioner not proper one, since, in the case where P.W.-1 and P.W.2 have finally been cross-examined by the petitioner and their cross-examination have been concluded on 08.01.2019 and 24.05.2019 respectively, why the application for their recall of the cross-examination has been filed after lapse of more than four years that is not said to be reasonable approach of the petitioner. 30. Moreover, it appears from the reference of the date made therein as referred hereinabove, ample opportunity has been given to the petitioner in order to cross-examine the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and as such it is not a case where the mandatory requirement of Section306(4)(a) of the Cr.P.C. has not been followed. 31. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that there is no impropriety in order impugned dated 15.06.2024, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 32. Accordingly, this Cr. M.P. fails and is dismissed.