- (1.)THE Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, has made this reference for quashing the commitment of Mastansingh, son of Ajabsingh by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur (vide his order dated 20th August, 1967), to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, for trial under Section 302/ 34, I. P. C. , along with other accused. Mastansingh was tendered pardon under Section 337, Cr. P. C. , by the District Magistrate, Ganganagar by his order dated 1-71967. and he was made an approver in the case. The learned Public Prosecutor made an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, to whom the case had been transferred for trial to the effect that the commitment, of Mastansingh was illegal and should be set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, therefore, recommended that the order of commitment of Mastansingh be set aside. It appears that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur, did not interpret correctly the provisions of Section 337 (2a), Criminal Procedure Code, which is reproduced below for ready reference: 337 (2-A ). In every case where a person has accepted a tender of pardon and has been examined under Sub-section (2), the Magistrate before whom the proceedings are pending shall, if he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of an offence, commit him for trial to the Court of Sessions or High Court, as the case may be.
(2.)THIS sub-section does not mean that the approver should be committed to trial along with the accused persons for the word "person" used in the sub-section has reference to an approver as contradistinguished from "accused which refers to person accused other than the approver. The circumstances in which an approver can be committed and tried and the procedure to be adopted in such cases are referred to in Sections 339 and 339-A, Cr. P. C. The committal of the approver along with the accused in the present case is illegal and Section 337 (2-A) does not authorise such a committal. Undoubtedly in the present case, there is no allegation that Mastansingh has not complied with the condition on which he was tendered pardon and, therefore, the question of committing him and trying him for the offence in respect of which the pardon was tendered to him does not arise. Sections 339 and 339-A, Cr. P. C. have, therefore, no application to the present case and the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur, clearly committed an error of law in committing Mastansingh for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar.
(3.)I, therefore, accept this reference and hereby set aside the order of commitment of Mastansingh dated 21-8-1967. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, is directed to proceed with the trial of the accused other than the approver Mastansingh.