Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. On a plain reading of the above said provision, it clearly discloses that no appeal or revision shall lie against an interlocutory order passed by the Special Court. In an application filed under Section 306 Cr.PC., a substantive right was claimed by the complainant to bring one of the witnesses as an approver to the case so as to prove its case during the course of the trial against the accused persons. This right of filing the application under Section 306, in our opinion is a substantive claim as per the provision under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. The consequence of allowing the application or dismissing the application is a decisive factor so far as such right is concerned, to consider whether it is an interlocutory order or it really affects the right of any person. Dismissal of the application consequently, completely wash out the right of the complainant or the person who seeks to bring that man as an approver to the Court. Allowing of the said application also benefits the claimant, so that he will not become an accused in the given case.

5. Now coming to the merits of this particular case, the complainant in Special C.C.No.223/2017 has in fact laid a charge-sheet against as many as 3 accused persons alleging serious offences under Sections 16, 18, 18(b), 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 120-B read with Sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC and also Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act read with Section 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and also under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Serious allegations are made against all the accused persons. The application was filed stating that one Mohammed Ayub was also indulged in the above said activities with other accused persons and he also virtually participated in facilitating the commission of the offence by other accused persons. Further to some extent, he had also knowingly or unknowingly indulged himself in supporting the other accused persons in committing such offences. Therefore, the complainant/Appellant wanted to bring this man as an approver, who has also readily accepted and agreed voluntarily for the same. Hence, the complainant requested the court to treat that man as an approver under Section 306 Cr.P.C. and to record his evidence before the court whether to treat him as an approver or not. The said application in fact was not contested by other accused persons and in fact the said Mohammed Ayub had also readily and voluntarily accepted to divulge all the truth before the court with regard to the alleged offences by all the accused persons. Even before this court, after filing of the petition, notice was ordered to the respondent Mohammed Ayub and he is represented by his counsel Shri Yaseen Saleha. The learned counsel Shri Yaseen Saleha has fairly conceded before the court that he has absolutely no objection to allow the application filed under Section 306 Cr.P.C. by the complainant and submitted that Mohammed Ayub would divulge all the truth before the court while considering his application under Section 306 of Cr.P.C.

"22. The first question that we have to decide is whether the High Court is right in coming to the conclusion that for being an approver within the meaning of Section 306 Cr.P.C., a person has to inculpate himself in the offence and has to be privy to the crime, otherwise he removes himself from the category of an accomplice and places himself as an eyewitness. Section 306 Cr.P.C. 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, the Magistrate may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his knowledge relating to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof.

23. This Court in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1995 Supp.(1) SCC 80] explained the object of Section 306 Cr.P.C. in the following words: (SCC p.106, para 42) "42. ... The object of Section 306 therefore is to allow pardon in cases where heinous offence is alleged to have been committed by several persons so that with the aid of the evidence of the person granted pardon the offence may be brought home to the rest. The basis of the tender of pardon is not the extent of the culpability of the person to whom pardon is granted, but the principle is to prevent the escape of the offenders from punishment in heinous offences for lack of evidence. There can therefore be no objection against tender of pardon to an accomplice simply because in his confession, he does not implicate himself to the same extent as the other accused because all that Section 306 requires is that pardon may be tendered to any person believed to be involved directly or indirectly in or privy to an offence."