TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an approver forfeits the pardon if he fails to make a full and true disclosure at any stage of the proceedings, even though he is not examined in the subsequent trial; (ii) Whether the evidence supported the conviction for abetment of abduction.
Issue (i): Whether an approver forfeits the pardon if he fails to make a full and true disclosure at any stage of the proceedings, even though he is not examined in the subsequent trial.
Analysis: The statutory obligation attached to a pardon is to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts. That obligation is not confined to a single stage or made dependent upon examination both before the committing Magistrate and in the Sessions Court. The requirement that the approver be examined in both courts serves the administration of justice and does not operate for his personal protection. Earlier decisions holding that breach of the condition occurs when the approver withholds truth or gives false evidence remain good law notwithstanding the amendment of Section 337(2).
Conclusion: The approver's pardon stood forfeited on failure to comply with its conditions, and the omission to examine him in the Sessions Court did not bar his trial.
Issue (ii): Whether the evidence supported the conviction for abetment of abduction.
Analysis: The evidence showed at most that the appellant conveyed a message between confederates. That may bear on conspiracy or some other offence, but it did not establish abetment of abduction of an adult person. The conviction was also recorded under Section 363, which has no application to the abduction of an adult, and the evidence did not prove the ingredients of the charge actually found by the trial court.
Conclusion: The conviction was unsustainable because the evidence did not support the finding of abetment of abduction.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant was acquitted.
Ratio Decidendi: The duty of an approver to make a full and true disclosure continues at every stage at which he is lawfully called to give evidence, and failure to comply with that condition forfeits the pardon irrespective of whether he is later examined in the Sessions Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
