Corroborated approver evidence and a special statutory procedure upheld convictions, with the Ordinance prevailing over the general criminal code.

Approver evidence, when materially corroborated by surrounding circumstances, may sustain convictions for conspiracy to commit dacoity and preparation for dacoity. The accused were found together with weapons and other incriminating articles, and their explanations were treated as vague and unsupported, so the convictions were upheld. A special procedure under the governing Ordinance also prevailed over the general Code of Criminal Procedure: because the Ordinance required the special Magistrate to try the case and was inconsistent with commitment to the Court of Session, the Magistrate was not bound to commit the accused after pardon was tendered to the approver. The appeals therefore failed and the convictions and sentences were maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the evidence, including the approver's testimony and the surrounding circumstances, was sufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy to commit dacoity and preparation for committing dacoity; (ii) whether, after tendering pardon to the approver, the special Magistrate was bound to commit the accused for trial to the Court of Session under Section 337(2-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions for conspiracy to commit dacoity and preparation for committing dacoity.

Analysis: The approver's account was treated as materially supported by the fact that the accused were apprehended together in circumstances indicating a concerted attempt to proceed to the place where the dacoity was to be committed. The surrounding facts, including the possession of weapons, tickets, a false moustache, a sketch of the house, and other incriminating articles, were relied upon as corroborative circumstances. The explanations offered by the accused were found to be vague and unsupported.

Conclusion: The convictions were upheld and this issue was decided against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the special Magistrate was bound to commit the accused for trial to the Court of Session after tendering pardon to the approver.

Analysis: The Ordinance governing the special Magistrate's trial contained express provisions that the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply only so far as it was not inconsistent with the Ordinance. Since the Ordinance itself required the special Magistrate to try the case and was inconsistent with any requirement to commit the matter to the Court of Session, the Code provision could not override the special procedure created by the Ordinance.

Conclusion: The special Magistrate was not bound to commit the accused to the Court of Session, and this issue was decided against the accused.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on both the evidence and the procedural objection, and the convictions and sentences were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special enactment provides a complete and inconsistent procedure, it prevails over the general criminal procedure code, and convictions may be sustained on approver evidence corroborated by surrounding circumstances.

---