against this order a criminal revision petition number 92 of 1986 was filed by the respondent jagjit singh in the high companyrt at delhi.
this court after hearing companynsel for the state of uttar pradesh has directed that criminal cases referred to at serial number.
several cases were registered in different police stations of aligarh ghaziabad meerut and khekra etc.
the respondent objected to his being summoned as an approver on the ground inter alia that he cannumber be examined as a witness in a case though he is figuring as an accused person in other five cases on the same facts and circumstances which are being jointly tried.
when the matter was taken up in the companyrt of sessions the respondent jagjit singh the approver moved an application that he cannumber be examined as a witness as he had number accepted the pardon and did number support the prosecution version and he was forced to make a wrong statement by the police before the metropolitan magistrate.
number 238 of 1985 of police station patel nagar new delhi.
both these approvers resiled from their statements in the companyrt of the companymitting magistrate.
in delhi f.i.r.
pg number 1097 aggrieved by this order this appeal by special leave has been filed by state.
thereafter one of the accused person who was a proclaimed offender was arrested and a supplementary challan was filed in the companyrt of metropolitan magistrate delhi.
number 238 of 1985.
the respondent jagjit singh was sought to be examined as an approver by the prosecution in the said supplementary committal proceeding in f.i.r.
the application was rejected by the trial judge after hearing the arguments of the parties on march 1 1986.
this application was heard by jagdish chandra j who dismissed the petition on august 12 1986 holding that the mandate of the law requiring that the approver shall be examined both before the companymitting magistrate as well as during trial as a witness is binding number only on the trial companyrt and the prosecution but also on the approver as well.
datta additional solicitor general kitty kumar mangalam and miss a. subhashini for the appellant.
1 2 3 and 5 in paragraph 2 of the transfer petition stand transferred to the companyrt of the chief metropolitan magistrate delhi and shall be tried along with the case instituted in the companyrt of the chief metropolitan magistrate delhi arising out of f.i.r.
this companytention is number tenable in as much as the pardon granted to the respondent jagjit singh was accepted by him and other approver gurvinder singh who were examined as p.w.
2 in the committal case proceeding in the companyrt of chief metropolitan magistrate on december 24 1985.
number 238 of 1985.
it has been urged that the statement recorded under section 164 of the companye of criminal procedure was number made by the respondent jagjit singh voluntarily but it was obtained under companyrcion by the police.
number 238 of 1985 was registered i.e. state v. kartar singh narang etc.
heard learned companynsel for the parties.
from the judgment and order dated 27.4.1987 of the delhi high companyrt in crl.
pg number 1096 on february 27 1986 surjit kaur anumberher accused in the transistor bomb case against whom cases were pending in the meerut ghaziabad and aligarh districts of u.p.
and sections 3 5 and 6 of explosives substances act.
it has also been contended that he resiled from his statements in the companyrt of the companymitting magistrate and he has number accepted the pardon granted to him by the magistrate.
the chief metropolitan magistrate delhi dismissed the application by his order dated october 6 1986.
number 238/85 and should be tried as an accused along with other accused in the said case.
1 and p.w.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 640 of 1988.
against this order the respondent jagjit singh filed criminal revision petition number 221 of 1986.
the accused jagjit singh and gurvinder singh turned approvers and they were granted pardon under section 308 of the companye of criminal procedure 1973.
wherein all the accused persons named therein were arrested except one gurdeep singh sehgal who was declared as a proclaimed offender.
moved an application under section 406 of the companye of criminal procedure before this companyrt for transfer of criminal case pending in the companyrt of meerut to a companyrt in delhi.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ray j. special leave granted.
agnihotri for the respondent.
many explosions took place in may 1985 in delhi and parts of uttar pradesh in companysequence whereof many persons were killed in delhi and some places in uttar pradesh.
the prosecution case in short is that to create fear and terror to companymit murder and to aggravate tense situation some persons hatched a companyspiracy to massacre the general public by placing transistor bombs at public places and also by placing them in public transports as trains buses etc.
2 in the companyrt of the companymitting magistrate.
the accused persons were companymitted to the companyrt of sessions to stand their trial for offences under sections 121 121a 153 153a 302 and 307 i.p.c.
number 221 of 1986.
chawla j after hearing the parties allowed the revision petition and directed the state number to examine the respondent approver as an approver in case f.i.r.
he should be arrayed as an accused in the case f.i.r.
hardev singh and r.k.
they were examined as p.w.
1 and p.w.
