Withdrawal from prosecution and conditional pardon under the Code can operate alongside special procedure unless inconsistent with it.

A special criminal procedure statute that incorporates the Code applies the Code's ancillary powers unless they are inconsistent with the special procedure. On that basis, withdrawal from prosecution under Section 494(a) could be permitted to secure an accused person's evidence as a witness, subject to judicial discretion and with due regard to Section 337 where available. The text also states that a Special Magistrate under the Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act, 1932 retained power to tender a conditional pardon under Section 337 and examine the approver, because the special Act displaced only the obligation to commit the accused after pardon. Earlier authorities were approved on that limited point, though one judge dissented on the power to tender pardon itself.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court may consent to the Public Prosecutor withdrawing from the prosecution of an accused under Section 494(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of obtaining that person's evidence as a witness. (ii) Whether a Special Magistrate appointed under the Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act, 1932 has power to tender a conditional pardon under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (iii) Whether the cited decisions on the same question were rightly decided.

Issue (i): Whether the Court may consent to the Public Prosecutor withdrawing from the prosecution of an accused under Section 494(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of obtaining that person's evidence as a witness.

Analysis: The majority held that Section 494 did not prohibit withdrawal where the object was to make the person available as a witness, since the section vested a judicial discretion in the Court and did not confine the grounds on which withdrawal could be allowed. It was further held that where Section 337 was not applicable, withdrawal under Section 494 could lawfully be used to obtain accomplice evidence, though where Section 337 was available it would ordinarily be the better course. The trial irregularity in later restoring the withdrawn accused as a co-accused and thereby defeating cross-examination was treated as a separate fatal defect.

Conclusion: Yes. The Court may consent to such withdrawal, though the discretion should be exercised with regard to the availability of Section 337 where applicable.

Issue (ii): Whether a Special Magistrate appointed under the Bengal Suppression of Terrorist Outrages Act, 1932 has power to tender a conditional pardon under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The majority held that the Special Magistrate could invoke Section 337 because the local Act incorporated the Code so far as it was not inconsistent with the special procedure, and the powers to tender pardon and examine the pardoned person were not inconsistent with the Act. Only the obligation to commit the accused to another court after acceptance of pardon was displaced by the special enactment. On this view, the Special Magistrate retained the ancillary power to tender pardon and receive the approver's evidence.

Conclusion: Yes. The Special Magistrate had power to tender a conditional pardon under Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (iii): Whether the cited decisions on the same question were rightly decided.

Analysis: The majority approved the earlier decisions to the extent that they held that a Special Magistrate was not bound to commit the accused after tendering pardon and could still examine the approver as a witness. Mukerji, J. dissented on the power to tender pardon itself, holding that the special statute authorized only trial and not pardon, and that the contrary authorities were wrongly decided if they meant otherwise.

Conclusion: Yes, by the majority, the cited decisions were rightly decided on the relevant point; Mukerji, J. dissented.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted because the trial was vitiated and the evidence could not sustain the convictions.

Ratio Decidendi: A special criminal procedure statute incorporating the Code applies the Code's ancillary powers unless they are inconsistent with the special procedure, and withdrawal from prosecution may be allowed to obtain evidence where the Code does not forbid it and the Court exercises judicial discretion properly.

---