Mandatory approver examination before committal is distinct from pardon-stage questioning, and no cross-examination lies at that stage.

Examination of an approver under Section 306(4) CrPC is a mandatory statutory step before committal and is distinct from the earlier questioning at the time of tendering pardon, which does not substitute for that examination. A Chief Judicial Magistrate who has recorded the approver's confession is not disqualified from conducting the Section 306(4) examination or committing the case, because recording confession is only a limited judicial act on voluntariness. The Magistrate need not make over the matter to another Magistrate, and the accused has no right to cross-examine the approver at the Section 306(4) stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an approver who was examined at the stage of tendering pardon during investigation must be examined again before the Magistrate under Section 306(4) before committal; (ii) Whether recording of the approver's confession by the Chief Judicial Magistrate disables him from examining the approver under Section 306(4) or committing the case; (iii) Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate must make over the case to another Magistrate for examination of the approver; (iv) Whether the accused has a right to cross-examine the approver at the examination under Section 306(4).

Issue (i): Whether an approver who was examined at the stage of tendering pardon during investigation must be examined again before the Magistrate under Section 306(4) before committal.

Analysis: Examination or questioning at the stage of tendering pardon serves only the Magistrate's satisfaction and is not the statutory examination contemplated by Section 306(4). The latter is mandatory and is required to ascertain whether the approver has resiled from the position taken when pardon was accepted. The earlier questioning does not substitute the statutory examination.

Conclusion: The approver must be examined again before the Magistrate under Section 306(4) before committal.

Issue (ii): Whether recording of the approver's confession by the Chief Judicial Magistrate disables him from examining the approver under Section 306(4) or committing the case.

Analysis: Recording a confession is a limited judicial act concerned with voluntariness and warnings. It does not amount to adjudication on the merits and does not create a disqualification for subsequent committal functions. The Magistrate's earlier role as recorder of confession does not prevent him from carrying out the statutory duties under Section 306(4) and Section 306(5).

Conclusion: Recording the confession does not debar the Chief Judicial Magistrate from examining the approver or from committing the case.

Issue (iii): Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate must make over the case to another Magistrate for examination of the approver.

Analysis: Section 306(4) is independent of committal under Section 209. The Magistrate taking cognizance can himself examine the approver and then commit the case where required. Making over the matter to another Magistrate is not necessary, though it may be done as a matter of desirability or embarrassment if the Magistrate so chooses.

Conclusion: The Chief Judicial Magistrate need not make over the case to another Magistrate for examining the approver.

Issue (iv): Whether the accused has a right to cross-examine the approver at the examination under Section 306(4).

Analysis: The examination under Section 306(4) occurs before the accused is in the picture and is not part of the trial evidence. It is intended only to test the approver's position after pardon, not to determine guilt. Cross-examination by the accused arises only at the subsequent trial, when the approver is examined as evidence.

Conclusion: The accused has no right to cross-examine the approver at the Section 306(4) stage.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that the statutory examination of the approver is mandatory before committal, that the Magistrate is not disqualified by having recorded the confession, that no transfer to another Magistrate is necessary, and that no cross-examination by the accused lies at the committal-stage examination.

Ratio Decidendi: The examination of an approver under Section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a mandatory statutory step distinct from committal proceedings, and it may be performed by the Magistrate taking cognizance regardless of any prior recording of confession.

---