Pardon to approver after commitment remained valid, and no separate discharge order was required for admissible witness evidence.

A District Magistrate could validly tender pardon under the proviso to Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to an accused who then became a witness, and no separate formal order of discharge was required. The approver's testimony remained admissible because the pardon changed his status from accused to witness. Section 338 did not take away that power after commitment in a case triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, so the pardon was lawful and the conviction based on the approver's evidence was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the tender of pardon by the District Magistrate to a person who had been an accused was invalid for want of a formal order discharging him before he became a witness; (ii) Whether, after commitment of the case, the District Magistrate still had power to tender pardon in a case triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions.

Issue (i): Whether the tender of pardon by the District Magistrate to a person who had been an accused was invalid for want of a formal order discharging him before he became a witness.

Analysis: The pardon was tendered under the proviso to Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Once pardon is tendered, the person ceases to stand in the position of an accused and becomes a witness. No separate formal order of discharge was necessary, and the surrounding circumstances showed that he was treated as a witness after the pardon.

Conclusion: The absence of a separate formal discharge did not make the approver's evidence inadmissible.

Issue (ii): Whether, after commitment of the case, the District Magistrate still had power to tender pardon in a case triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions.

Analysis: Section 338 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not exclude the power already conferred by the proviso to Section 337. In a case under inquiry or trial, the District Magistrate remained competent to tender pardon under that proviso. The power was therefore validly exercised in the present case.

Conclusion: The District Magistrate had authority to tender pardon after commitment, and the pardon was valid.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained because the approver's pardon was legally valid and the challenge to the admissibility of his evidence failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the District Magistrate may validly tender pardon under the proviso to Section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even after commitment, and the person so pardoned becomes a competent witness without the need for a separate formal discharge order.

---