Sequential pardon procedure under CrPC requires approver examination before any Section 308 certificate for false evidence or concealment.

Under the sequential scheme of Sections 306 and 308 CrPC, an approver must first be examined as a witness under Section 306(4) before any certificate of non-compliance can be issued under Section 308(1). The Public Prosecutor's certificate must rest on wilful concealment of material facts or false evidence given before the Court, not merely on alleged non-cooperation during investigation. Accordingly, a request to revoke pardon before the approver's examination is premature and not maintainable at that stage; the statutory procedure must be followed before adverse consequences can arise.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application seeking revocation of pardon was maintainable before the approver was examined under Section 306(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether a certificate under Section 308(1) could be founded on alleged non-cooperation during investigation rather than on evidence recorded before the Court.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Sections 306 and 308 is sequential. Pardon is tendered on the condition of full and true disclosure, the approver must then be examined as a witness under Section 306(4), and only thereafter can the Public Prosecutor certify non-compliance under Section 308(1) if the approver has wilfully concealed anything essential or given false evidence. The examination under Section 306(4) is mandatory and serves to test whether the approver is adhering to the conditions of pardon. The authorities relied upon show that the trigger for Section 308(1) is the approver's evidence before the Court, not mere conduct during investigation. On that basis, a request to revoke pardon before the approver's examination was premature, and a certificate resting only on alleged investigative non-cooperation did not fit the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The application to revoke pardon was not maintainable at that stage and was rightly rejected as premature.

Final Conclusion: The order refusing revocation of pardon was sustained, with liberty preserved to seek appropriate relief at the proper stage after compliance with the statutory procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Sections 306 and 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the approver must first be examined as a witness under Section 306(4), and only then can the Public Prosecutor certify wilful concealment of material facts or false evidence for the consequences under Section 308(1) to follow.

---