# [1960] 2 S.C.R. 355 - **Citation:** [1960] 2 S.C.R. 355 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1960 - **Case number:** CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISD'ICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 25 to 27 of 1958 - **Bench:** Jafer Imam, J. L. Kapur, K. N. Wanchoo - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1960-2-s-c-r-355-1866 - **Pages:** 8 ## Headnote Criminal Law-Pardon-Conspiracy and ·allied offencesTender of pardon of approver for main offence-Separate trial of other acciised for subsidiary offence-Examination of approver as such for subsidiary offence-Legality-Code of Criminal Procedure, z898, (Act V of z898), ss. 339, 377(z). On March 9, 1956, a conspiracy to .divulge the budget proposals on receiving valuable consideration was discovered and a case was registered under s. l65A of the Indian Penal Code, s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and s. l20B of the Indian Penal Code .. Investigation started on March IO, 1956, and thereafter pardon ·was tendered to M by the Additional District Magistrate under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Owing to technical legal difficulties a complaint under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. l20B of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the persons involved and proceedings began before a magistrate on this complaint. In the course of these proceedings the prosecution wanted to examine M as an approver, but the accused persons objected that as the proceedings before the .magistrate were only under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and as no pardon .could be tendered under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for these offences, M could not be treated as an approver but could be examined only as an ordinary witness. It was contended for the prosecution that as the person to whom pardon was tendered was expected to tell the whole truth including details of other subsidiary offences committed in the course of the commission of the offence for which pardon was tendered, such pardon must be held to include the subsidiary offences though not of the nature mentioned in s. 377(1), and therefore M could be con~idered as an approver in the present proceedings. Held, that a pardon under s. 377(1) of the Code of' Criminal Procedure could be tendered only with respect to the offences mentioned therein and that as s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code was not covered by the words of s. 337(1) no pardon could be granted for an offence of this nature. Consequently, as the proceedings before the magistrate were only with respect to these offences, M could not be treated as an approver for the purpose of these proceedings. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISD'ICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 25 to 27 of 1958. I959 November 30. ·:l 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960 (2)] r959 Appeals from the judgment and order dated June 25, The State 1957, of the Punjab High Opurt, in Criminal Revisions v. Nos. 184-D, 185-D and 186-D of 1956, arising out of Hiralal G. Kotha'i the judgment and order dated October 23, 1956, of the and Othm Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Criminal· Revision Applications Nos. 249, 250 and 251 of 1956. Bipin Behai·i Lal and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. G. 0. Mathur and J. N. Shroff, for the respondent in Cr. A. No. 25 of 1958. A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent in Cr. A. No. 26of1958. . Respondent in Cr. A. No. 27 of 1959 did not appear. 1959. November 30. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo J. WANOHOO J.-These three appeals arise out of three certificates granted by the Punjab High Court in a criminal matter. They will be dealt with together as the point raised in them is common. The brief facts necessary for the purpose are these : There is a Government Printing Press at Rashtrapati Bhavan known as Rashtrapati Bhavan Printing Press which is locatea in the President's estate in New Delhi. Jacobs was the General Foreman of this Press. Every year the budget proposals are printed at this Press under the supervision of Jacobs. As usual, Jacobs supervised the printing of budget proposals in his official capacity in February 1955 also. It appears that Jacobs entered into a conspiracy to divulge the budget proposals on receiving valuable consideration for the same. ·consequently the proposals ## Text • - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 355 THE STATE 'I.'. HIRALAL G. KOTHARI AND OTHERS (JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) Criminal Law-Pardon-Conspiracy and ·allied offencesTender of pardon of approver for main offence-Separate trial of other acciised for subsidiary offence-Examination of approver as such for subsidiary offence-Legality-Code of Criminal Procedure, z898, (Act V of z898), ss. 339, 377(z). On March 9, 1956, a conspiracy to .divulge the budget proposals on receiving valuable consideration was discovered and a case was registered under s. l65A of the Indian Penal Code, s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and s. l20B of the Indian Penal Code .. Investigation started on March IO, 1956, and thereafter pardon ·was tendered to M by the Additional District Magistrate under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Owing to technical legal difficulties a complaint under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. l20B of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the persons involved and proceedings began before a magistrate on this complaint. In the course of these proceedings the prosecution wanted to examine M as an approver, but the accused persons objected that as the proceedings before the .magistrate were only under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and as no pardon .could be tendered under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for these offences, M could not be treated as an approver but could be examined only as an ordinary witness. It was contended for the prosecution that as the person to whom pardon was tendered was expected to tell the whole truth including details of other subsidiary offences committed in the course of the commission of the offence for which pardon was tendered, such pardon must be held to include the subsidiary offences though not of the nature mentioned in s. 377(1), and therefore M could be con~idered as an approver in the present proceedings. Held, that a pardon under s. 377(1) of the Code of' Criminal Procedure could be tendered only with respect to the offences mentioned therein and that as s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code was not covered by the words of s. 337(1) no pardon could be granted for an offence of this nature. Consequently, as the proceedings before the magistrate were only with respect to these offences, M could not be treated as an approver for the purpose of these proceedings. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRISD'ICTION: Criminal Appeals Nos. 25 to 27 of 1958. I959 November 30. ·:l 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1960 (2)] r959 Appeals from the judgment and order dated June 25, The State 1957, of the Punjab High Opurt, in Criminal Revisions v. Nos. 184-D, 185-D and 186-D of 1956, arising out of Hiralal G. Kotha'i the judgment and order dated October 23, 1956, of the and Othm Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Criminal· Revision Applications Nos. 249, 250 and 251 of 1956. Bipin Behai·i Lal and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant. G. 0. Mathur and J. N. Shroff, for the respondent in Cr. A. No. 25 of 1958. A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent in Cr. A. No. 26of1958. . Respondent in Cr. A. No. 27 of 1959 did not appear. 1959. November 30. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo J. WANOHOO J.-These three appeals arise out of three certificates granted by the Punjab High Court in a criminal matter. They will be dealt with together as the point raised in them is common. The brief facts necessary for the purpose are these : There is a Government Printing Press at Rashtrapati Bhavan known as Rashtrapati Bhavan Printing Press which is locatea in the President's estate in New Delhi. Jacobs was the General Foreman of this Press. Every year the budget proposals are printed at this Press under the supervision of Jacobs. As usual, Jacobs supervised the printing of budget proposals in his official capacity in February 1955 also. It appears that Jacobs entered into a conspiracy to divulge the budget proposals on receiving valuable consideration for the same. ·consequently the proposals were divulged to D. P. Ohadda and were passed on to certain businessmen of Bombay, including Nandlal More and Hiralal G. Kothari through one A. L. Mehra. All this was done against the provisions of the Official Secrets Act, No. XIX of 1923. Further an offence was committed ·under the· Prevention of Corruption Act, No. II of 1947, also inasmuch as money was paid to Jacobs for divulging the budget proposals. The same thing happened in February 1956, with respect to the • -- . )_ 0 S.C.R. SUPREME COUltT REPORTS 357 budget proposals for 1956-57. This was discovered on z959 March 9, 1956, and a case was registered under Thi State s. 165-A of the Indian Penal Code, s. 5(2) of the Prev. vention of Corruption Act, s. 5 of the Official Secrets Hiralal G. Kothari Act ands. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and investigand Others ation started on March 10, 1956. Thereafter, pardon was tendered to A.L. Mehra by the Additional District Wane/loo J · Magistrate on March 23, 1956, under s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The four offences mentioned above were specified in the order of the Additional District Magistrate tendering pardon to Mehra. Thereafter owing to technical legal difficulties a complaint under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the persons involved and it was stated in that complaint that proceedings with the respect to the charge under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act would be taken separately. Proceedings then began before a magistrate on this complaint. It may be mentioned that no proceedings have yet started insofar as the offences under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and s. 165-A of the Indian Penal Code are concerned. In the course of these proceedings before the magistrate, the prosecution wanted to examine Mehra as an approver. Thereupon the accused per3ons objected that as the proceedings before the magistrate were only under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act and s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Mehra could not be examined as an approver and in consequence the case could not be committed to the Court of Session but should be disposed of by the magistrate himself. The magistrate held that Mehra could be treated as an approver and proceedings before him were therefore in the nature of commitment proceedings. Thereupon there was a revision to the Sessions Judge who took the view that as the proceedings before the magistrate were under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and as no pardon could be tendered under s. 33'7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for these offences, Mehra could not be treated as an approver and had to be examined as an 46 358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] 1959 ordinary witness and the proceedings must be held to n, Sleen tendered for the same. Reliance in this connection is placed also on s. 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that where any person who has accepted pardon either by wilfully concealing anything essential or by giving false evidence, does not comply with the condition on which the tender was made, he may be tried for the offence in respect of which the pardon was tendered or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the same matter. It is said that the specific provision for trial for any other offence which might have been committed in connection with the same matter in s. 339 shows that the pardon would cover the other . offence also even though it may not be an offence for which the pardon was and could be tendered. We are of opinion that no such . inference could be drawn from the use of these words in s. 339, for tha.t / 360 SUPR:EME COUHT REPORTS [1960(2)) 1959 section deals with a different contingency altogether. The State namely, whether the conditions of the pardon had v. been complied with. It is to be remembered that a Hfralal G. Kot11"'i pardon tendered under s. 337 is a protection from and Others prosecution. Fail me to comply with the conditions on which the pardon is tendered removes that protocwanchoo f. tion. All that s. 339 says, provided the requisite certificate under that section is given by the Public Prosecutor, is that the person to whom tho pardon is tendered can be prosecuted for the oftence for which the pardon was te1}derod as also any other offence of which he appears to be guilty in connection with the same matter. This would be just the same as ifs. 339 merely stated that on failure to comply with the conditions of the pardon such pardon would be forfeited. The words of s. 339 therefore are of no help in construing s. 337 a.nd we must look to tho words of 337 in deciding whether a pardon could be tendered for an offence under s. 5 of tho Official Secrets Act read withs. 120.B of the Indian Penal Code. The fact that in the application in which the police requested the Additional District Magistrate for tender of pardon oi: in the order of the Additional District Ma~istrate tendering pardon, s. 5 of the Official Secrets, Act was mentioned along with other offences for which pardon could be tendered would not mean that a pardon could be tendered for an offence under that Act if under the law as provided in s. 337(1) no pardon could be tender.= ed for an offence under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act. As we read s. 337(1), it is to our mind perfectly clear that pardon can only be tendered under that provision with respect to the three categories of offences mention. ed therein and already· indicated above and none other. As s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120-B of the Indian Pena.I Code does not fa,11 within any of these categories no pardon can be tendered with respect to that offence. Therefore, :i\Iehra to whom pardon has been tendered, could not be examined as an approver in the proceedings which are concerned only with an offence under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. - - ' - ,. .. ..... • S.C.R. SUPREME COUl~T R.EPOR,TS 361 Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention z959 to three cases in support of the view that a pardon The State under s. 337(1) could be tendered not only for the v. offences of the kind enumerated therein but also other Hiralal G. Kothari offences which might be committed in the course of and Others the commission of the offences enumerated therein but which might not be within the terms of s. 337(1). Wanchoo f. These cases are: Queen-Empress v. Ganga Oharan(1); Harumal Parmanand v. Empemr (2); and Shiam S1mder v. Empero1' (3). These cases however refer to different circumstances altogether a,nd were not concerned with the interpretation of s. 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In all these cases the question that arose before the courts was whether an approver who was prosecuted under s. 339 for certain offences could be or should be so prosecuted. They also turned on the terms of the pardon granted in those particular cases. It was there held that where a question arose how far a pardon would protect an approver, it should not be treated in a narrow· spirit, bearing in mind that in countenancing tender of pardons to accomplices the law does not invite a cramped and coi1strained statement by the approver but requires a thorough and complete disclosure of all the facts within his knowledge bearing upon the offence or offences as to which he gave evidence. The considerations which apply when a trial is taking place under s. 339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are entirely different. The proviso to s. 339 shows that at his trial, an approver is entitled to plead that he has complied with the conditions upon which tender of pardon was made and if he succeeds in proving that he has complied with the conditions upon which the tender was made he is protected from prosecution with respect to all offences which appear to have been committed in connection with the matter giving rise to the offence for which pardon was tendered. 'l'hese three cases really turn on the question whether the accused had complied with the conditions upon which the pardon was tendered to him and it was held that he had so complied. (I) I.L.R. II All.79. (2) A,l.R. 1915 Sind 43. (3) A.l.R. 1921 All. ~34· 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] '959 In those circumstances, the trial under s. 339 was held The State to be bad. We are not concerned in the present case v. with s. 339. What we have to decide is whether a Hiralal G. Kothari pardon under s. 337(1) of the Code of Criminal Proand Others cedure can be granted in the case of an offence undflr s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act read with s. 120-B 0f Wanchoo J. the Indian Penal Code. To that there can bo only one answer on the terms of s. 337(1), namely, that no pardon can be granted for an offence of this nature. Therefore, as the present proceedings before the magistrate are only for an offence under s. 5 of the Official Secrets Act re»d with s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Mehra cannot be examined as an approver in that court. There is no force in these appeals and they are hereby dismissed. '959 December 2 Appeals dismissed. CHATURBHAIM.PATEL v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (JAFER IMAM, S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR, and l\'[. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) Legislative Competence-Validity of enactment-Competence of Central Legislature-Levy of excise duty on tobacco-Pith and substance of legislation-·Central Excises and Salt Act, I944 (I of I944), ss. 6, 8, Riiles-Govermnent of India Act, I935 (26 Geo. V. Ch. 2), s. IOO, Sch. 7, List I, Entry 45, List II, Entries 27, 29. The petitioner who was doing business in tobacco was charged with the contravention of Rules 15r(C) and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944· The Collector finding the charges to be proved ordered confiscation of the goods found in the petitioner's warehouse and levied dutY thereon in lieu of confiscation and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000. The petitioner challenged the validity of the orders on the grounds, inter alia, that ss. 6 and 8 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder were beyond the legislative competence of the Central legislature in view of the fact that though the provisions of the Act which provided for the levy of excise duties might fall within item 45 of List I read with s. mo of the Government of India Act, 1935, the Act in question would also be covered by items 27 and 29, of List II, as the possession and trade in tobacco were also regulated, and would, to that extent, be ultra vires. . .. -