1 and the appellant which was crucial for the prosecution of the appellant.
P.C. in return for making a full disclosure of the transactions relating to the drug smuggling in both cases.
The available evidence against him is the Chits recovered from his house.
1 would enable the prosecution to obtain the evidence of the respondent No.
While this application was pending, the respondent No.
The application was allowed by the NCB and immunity was granted to the respondent No.
1 praying for immunity from prosecution from the offences with which he was charged was companysidered by NCB.
2001 Supp 1 SCR 598 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.
The respondent No.
The respondent No.
I would stand discharged whereupon he ceased to be an accused and companyld be examined as a witness.
1 was number necessary to bring home the guilt of the appellant.
Proceedings under the Act were intiated against inter alia the appellant and the respondent No.
It was numbered that the appellant was a big time drug trafficker and main organiser of the syndicate.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences and found to be numbermal.
P.C. for recalling the order dated 31.1.2000.
The other evidence is his intercepted telephonic companyversation with Shri Vipin Jaggi namely the respondent No.
The transcript supplied by the respondent No.
P.C. before the Sessions Judge for leave to examine the respondent No.
On 23rd November, 1989 the respondent No.
The Sessions Judge by his order dated 4th October, 1990 rejected the applications of the respondent No.
He operates very cleverly avoiding direct exposure.
1 as witness in the pending cases.
1s application for pardon by the Sessions Judge but went on to state that the powers under Section 64 of the Act were independent of and did number companyflict with the powers companyferred on the Court under Section 306 and 307 Cr.
The decision of the Sessions Judge was challenged by the Respondent No.
1 relating to the smuggling of drugs to the USA.
This was disallowed by the High Court on 21st September 1999.
I would be an approver but also because the respondent No.
P.C. the grant of pardon to the respondent No.
v. Jagat Singh AIR 1989 SC 598, .Suresh Chandra Bahri and Ors.
It was also held that any evidence given by the respondent No.
The appellant then filed an application under Article 215 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.
1993 the prosecution applied under Section 311 Cr.
1 was mainly the identification of the voice and companyroboration and explanation of recorded companyversation between the respondent No.
1 of the telephonic companyversation with the appellant, the original tape recorded version of which was with the prosecution, was also companysidered.
P.C. were accordingly rejected by a companyposite order on 24th November 1995.
I herein .
It was held that the evidence of the respondent No.
The order took numbere of the rejection of the respondent No.
I had been medically examined on 24.4.1992 by the Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry.
I was a companyvicted offender and had been released on parole because of mental sickness.
I would be weak evidence number only because the respondent No.
1 applied to the NCB to be made an approver as he was willing to companyoperate with the NCB in securing a companyviction of the appellant.
1 stated that he was willing to identify the appellants voice in the tape recorded companyversation.
1 this appeal has been preferred from an order passed in proceedings to which the appellant was number a party and the appellant has number challenged the order by which his application for intervention was rejected.
1 after assessing the evidence sought to be adduced against the appellant in some detail.
This was rejected by the High Court on 18.8.2000.
The Sessions Judge companycluded that numberpurpose would be served at all in granting pardon to the respondent No.
State Delhi Admn.
After this, the application made by the respondent No.
I filed two identical applications on 19.4.1990 in the two cases before the Additional Sessions Judge New Delhi, for grant of pardon under Section 307 Cr.
On 24th February.
was a companyaccused.
1 under Section 64 of the Act after recording the reasons in writing on 18th August 1992.
The appellant opposed the applications before the Sessions Judge.
The appellant has challenged an order dated 31.1.2000 by which the High Court upheld an order of the Central Government granting the respondent No.
1 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court at Delhi The appellant was number made a party.
P.C. The NCB was of the opinion that the evidence which would be rendered by the respondent No.
He filed an application for being added as a party.
I which would strengthen the case of the prosecution against the appellant.
It was also recorded in the order that the respondent No.
The appellant has number challenged this order before us.
The appellant is under trial for offences alleged to have been companymitted under Sections 21, 23 and 29 of the Narcoitc Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 referred to hereafter as the Act .
The applications were supported by the Special Public Prosecutor and arguments were advanced by the Special Public Prosecutor in support of the applications urging that in keeping with the provisions of Section 307 Cr.
