https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287402 In a case triable by a Special Judge treated as a Court of Session, the District Magistrate retained concurrent power to tender pardon under section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so the approver's evidence remained admissible. Failure to hold a test identification parade did not make identification evidence inadmissible; it affected only the weight of the evidence. Separate charges should have been framed, but the irregularity was cured under section 537 because no prejudice was shown and the objection had been abandoned at trial. The conviction under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was upheld on the concurrent findings of guilt. en-us Thu, 06 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Apr 2020 15:31:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287402 In a case triable by a Special Judge treated as a Court of Session, the District Magistrate retained concurrent power to tender pardon under section 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so the approver's evidence remained admissible. Failure to hold a test identification parade did not make identification evidence inadmissible; it affected only the weight of the evidence. Separate charges should have been framed, but the irregularity was cured under section 537 because no prejudice was shown and the objection had been abandoned at trial. The conviction under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was upheld on the concurrent findings of guilt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Feb 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287402