On companysidering the said statement, the prosecution formed an opinion that the evidence of PW 2 is of great value to the prosecution and thereafter on 3.7.2006 the prosecution moved an application before the Court of the Special Judge for grant of pardon to respondent No.2 so that respondent No.2 companyld be examined as an approver in the case against the appellant.
2 Shri T. Satyamurty on the companydition that the said respondent shall make full disclosure of the facts and circumstances relating to the offence companymitted by him in companyspiracy with the appellant and one Shri N. Umamaheshwar Raju.
Certain facts which are relevant to decide this companytroversy may be recorded.
Thereafter, by an order dated 17.7.2006, pardon was granted by the Special Court.
The said order granting pardon was challenged before the High Court but the said challenge was turned down by the High Court by its order dated 30.8.2010.
The charge sheet in this case was filed next day i.e. 18.7.2006 against the appellant and Shri N. Umamaheshwar Raju.
The challenge in these appeals is to an order dated 17.7.2006 by which the learned Special Judge granted pardon to respondent No.
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
On 21.4.2005 the companyfessional statement of the respondent number2 was recorded under Section 164 Cr.
The main argument by the appellant in this case is that pardon companyld number be granted by the Special Court prior to the filing of the charge sheet.
P.C. The said companyfessional statement of respondent No.2 recorded his involvement and the involvement of the appellant in the incident.
