{"id":22329,"date":"1988-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988"},"modified":"2018-01-13T21:45:24","modified_gmt":"2018-01-13T16:15:24","slug":"state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988","title":{"rendered":"State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR  598, \t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (3)1093<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B Ray<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ray, B.C. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSTATE (DELHI ADMN.)\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAGJIT SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/12\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nOJHA, N.D. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR  598\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (3)1093\n 1989 SCC  Supl.  (2) 770 JT 1988 (4)\t715\n 1988 SCALE  (2)1578\n\n\nACT:\n   Criminal  Procedure\tCode,  1973:  Section  306   Person\naccepting  tender  of pardon- To be examined as\t witness  in\nCourt of Magistrate taking cognizance of offence as well  as\ntrial\tCourt-\tPerson\tresiling  from\tearlier\t  statement-\nLiability to be examined not absolved.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Many  explosions  took place in May 1985  in  Delhi\t and\nUttar  Pradesh killing many persons. Consequently, a  number\nof cases were registered. In Delhi, FIR No. 238 of 1985\t was\nregistered wherein the respondent and another accused turned\napprovers  and were granted pardon under section 306 of\t the\nCode  of  Criminal  Procedure, 1973.  Both  these  approvers\nhowever\t resiled from their statements in the Court  of\t the\nCommitting Magistrate.\n    Four  Criminal  cases  pending  in\tMeerut\twere   later\ntransferred  by the Supreme Court to the Court of the  Chief\nMetropolitan  Magistrate, Delhi, to be tried along with\t the\ncase arising out of FIR No. 238 of 1985.\n    In\tthe supplementary committal proceedings in case\t FIR\nNo.  238  of  1985, the respondent  objected  to  his  being\nsummoned  as  an approver on the ground inter alia  that  he\ncould  not be examined as a witness in the case\t because  he\nwas figuring as an accused person in the other four cases on\nthe  same facts and circumstances, which were being  jointly\ntried.\tThe  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate  dismissed\t the\napplication.   The  High  Court\t allowed  the\trespondent's\nrevision petition and directed the State not to examine\t the\nrespondent as an approver in case F.I.R. No. 238 of 1985.\n    In\tthe  appeal  before this Court, it  was\t inter\talia\ncontended  that\t the  prosecution  could  not  examine\t the\nrespondent as a witness because he had cast away the  pardon\ngranted to him.\n    Allowing the appeal,\n    HELD:  1.  The  pardon granted  to\tthe  respondent\t was\naccepted by him and he was examined as a prosecution witness\nin the Court of the Committing Magistrate, though he resiled\nfrom his statement there. [1097C]\n\t\t\t\t\t\t PG NO 1093\n\t\t\t\t\t\t PG NO. 1094\n    2.\tIt  is a mandate of the provisions of  the  Criminal\nProcedure Code to the prosecution to examine the approver to\nwhom  pardon  had  been granted as a  witness  both  in\t the\nCommitting Court as well as in the trial court. [1097E]\n    3. Section 306 clearly enjoins that the approver who was\ngranted pardon had to comply with the condition of making  a\nfull  and true disclosure of the whole of the  circumstances\nwithin\this knowledge relative to the offencc and  to  every\nother  concerned  whether as principal or  abettor,  in\t the\ncommission  thereof. It is because of this mandate that\t the\nState  cannot withdraw the pardon from the approver nor\t the\napprover can cast away the pardon granted to him, till he is\nexamined  as  a\t witness  by the  prosecution  both  in\t the\nCommitting  Court  as well as in the  trial  court.  [1097H;\n1098A-B]\n    4.\tThe respondent who has been granted pardon  in\tcase\nF.I.R. No. 238 of 1985 has to be examined by the prosecution\nin  the trial court no matter that he has resiled  from\t his\nearlier\t statement and tried to conceal what was within\t his\nknowledge with regard to the offence in question. [1100D]\n    In re: Arusami Goundan, AIR 1959 Mad. 274 and Emperor v.\nShandino Bhaniperto, AIR 1940 (Sind) 114 referred to.\n    5. Once an accused is granted pardon under section\t306,\nhe  ceases  to be an accused and becomes a witness  for\t the\nprosecution.  So  long as the prosecution does\tnot  certify\nthat he has failed to make a full and true disclosure of the\nwhole  of the circumstance within his knowledge relating  to\nthe   offence,\the  continues  to  be  a  witness  and\t the\nprosecution is under obligation to examine him as a  witness\nboth in the Committing Court as well as in the trial  court.\n[1099H; 1100A-B]\n    <a href=\"\/doc\/446598\/\">A.J.  Peiris  v.  State of Madras,\tAIR<\/a>  1954  (SC)\t 616\nreferred to.\n    6.\tA  witness is legally bound to answer  any  question\nwhich is relevant to the matter in issue even if the  answer\nto  such question is likely to incriminate him\tdirectly  or\nindirectly. [1100G]\n    7. The proviso to section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act\nclearly\t protects  a witness from being\t prosecuted  on\t the\nbasis  of the answers given by him in a criminal  proceeding\nwhich  tend  to\t incriminate  him  directly  or\t indirectly.\n[1101A]\n\t\t\t\t\t\tPG NO. 1095\n    8. The apprehension of the respondent that his  evidence\nas  approver  will  be used against him in  the\t other\tfour\ncriminal  cases where he figures as an accused\twas  without\nany  basis. On the other hand, he was  absolutely  protected\nfrom criminal prosecution on the basis of the evidence to be\ngiven  by  him\twhen  examined\tby  the\t prosecution  as  an\napprover. [1101B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 640<br \/>\nof 1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.1987 of the Delhi<br \/>\nHigh Court in Crl. Rev. No. 221 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n<p>    B.\tDatta,\tAdditional Solicitor  General,\tKitty  Kumar<br \/>\nMangalam and Miss A. Subhashini for the Appellant.<br \/>\n    Hardev Singh and R.K. Agnihotri for the Respondent.<br \/>\n    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    RAY, J. Special leave granted. Heard learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t prosecution case, in short, is that to create\tfear<br \/>\nand terror to commit murder and to aggravate tense situation<br \/>\nsome  persons hatched a conspiracy to massacre\tthe  general<br \/>\npublic by placing transistor bombs at public places and also<br \/>\nby  placing them in public transports as trains, buses\tetc.<br \/>\nMany explosions took place in May 1985 in Delhi and parts of<br \/>\nUttar  Pradesh\tin  consequence whereof\t many  persons\twere<br \/>\nkilled\tin Delhi and some places in Uttar  Pradesh.  Several<br \/>\ncases  were  registered\t in  different\tpolice\tstations  of<br \/>\nAligarh,  Ghaziabad, Meerut and Khekra etc. In Delhi  F.I.R.<br \/>\nNo.  238 of 1985 was registered i.e. <a href=\"\/doc\/603442\/\">State v.  Kartar  Singh<br \/>\nNarang<\/a>\tetc. wherein all the accused persons  named  therein<br \/>\nwere  arrested\texcept\tone Gurdeep  Singh  Sehgal  who\t was<br \/>\ndeclared as a proclaimed offender. The accused Jagjit  Singh<br \/>\nand  Gurvinder Singh turned approvers and they were  granted<br \/>\npardon under Section 308 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure,<br \/>\n1973.  They  were  examined  as P.W. 1 and  P.W.  2  in\t the<br \/>\ncommittal case proceeding in the court of Chief Metropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate  on\tDecember  24,  1985.  Both  these  approvers<br \/>\nresiled from their statements in the court of the Committing<br \/>\nMagistrate. The accused persons were committed to the  Court<br \/>\nof Sessions to stand their trial for offences under Sections<br \/>\n121,  121A, 153, 153A, 302 and 307 I.P.C. and sections 3,  5<br \/>\nand 6 of Explosives Substances Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t PG NO. 1096<br \/>\n    On\tFebruary 27, 1986, Surjit Kaur, another\t accused  in<br \/>\nthe Transistor Bomb Case, against whom cases were pending in<br \/>\nthe  Meerut, Ghaziabad and Aligarh Districts of U.P.,  moved<br \/>\nan  application\t under Section 406 of the Code\tof  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure  before this Court for transfer of  criminal\tcase<br \/>\npending\t in  the court of Meerut to a court in\tDelhi.\tThis<br \/>\nCourt  after hearing Counsel for the State of Uttar  Pradesh<br \/>\nhas directed that criminal cases referred to at Serial\tNos.<br \/>\n1, 2, 3 and 5 in paragraph 2 of the transfer petition  stand<br \/>\ntransferred   to  the  Court  of  the\tChief\tMetropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate,  Delhi  and shall be tried along with  the\tcase<br \/>\ninstituted   in\t  the  Court  of  the\tChief\tMetropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate,  Delhi arising out of F.I.R. No. 238 of 1985  of<br \/>\nPolice Station, Patel Nagar, New Delhi. When the matter\t was<br \/>\ntaken  up in the Court of Sessions, the\t respondent,  Jagjit<br \/>\nSingh,\tthe approver moved an application that he cannot  be<br \/>\nexamined as a witness as he had not accepted the pardon\t and<br \/>\ndid not support the prosecution version and he was forced to<br \/>\nmake a wrong statement by the police before the Metropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate. The application was rejected by the Trial  Judge<br \/>\nafter hearing the arguments of the parties on March 1, 1986.<br \/>\n    Against this order, a Criminal Revision Petition No.  92<br \/>\nof  1986  was filed by the respondent, Jagjit Singh  in\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court at Delhi. This application was heard by  Jagdish<br \/>\nChandra,  J  who dismissed the petition on August  12,\t1986<br \/>\nholding\t that  the  mandate of the law\trequiring  that\t the<br \/>\napprover  shall\t be  examined  both  before  the  Committing<br \/>\nMagistrate as well as during trial as a witness, is  binding<br \/>\nnot only on the trial court and the prosecution but also  on<br \/>\nthe approver as well.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Thereafter,\t one  of  the  accused\tperson\twho  was   a<br \/>\nproclaimed offender was arrested and a supplementary challan<br \/>\nwas  filed in the Court of Metropolitan\t Magistrate,  Delhi.<br \/>\nThe respondent, Jagjit Singh was sought to be examined as an<br \/>\napprover  by  the  prosecution, in  the\t said  supplementary<br \/>\ncommittal  proceeding  in  F.I.R.  No.\t238  of\t 1985.\t The<br \/>\nrespondent objected to his being summoned as an approver  on<br \/>\nthe  ground  inter  alia that he cannot\t be  examined  as  a<br \/>\nwitness in a case though he is figuring as an accused person<br \/>\nin  other  five cases on the same  facts  and  circumstances<br \/>\nwhich  are  being  jointly  tried.  The\t Chief\tMetropolitan<br \/>\nMagistrate,  Delhi  dismissed the application by  his  order<br \/>\ndated  October\t6, 1986. Against this order  the  respondent<br \/>\nJagjit\tSingh  filed Criminal Revision Petition No.  221  of<br \/>\n1986.  M.K. Chawla, J after hearing the parties allowed\t the<br \/>\nRevision Petition and directed the State not to examine\t the<br \/>\nrespondent-approver as an approver in case F.I.R. No. 238 of<br \/>\n1985.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t PG NO. 1097<br \/>\n    Aggrieved by this order this appeal by special leave has<br \/>\nbeen filed by State.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\thas  been urged that the  statement  recorded  under<br \/>\nSection\t 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not\tmade<br \/>\nby  the\t respondent,  Jagjit Singh voluntarily\tbut  it\t was<br \/>\nobtained  under\t coercion by the police. It  has  also\tbeen<br \/>\ncontended  that he resiled from his statements in the  court<br \/>\nof  the\t Committing Magistrate and he has not  accepted\t the<br \/>\npardon\tgranted\t to  him by the\t Magistrate.  He  should  be<br \/>\narrayed\t as  an accused in the case F.I.R.  No.\t 238\/85\t and<br \/>\nshould\tbe tried as an accused along with other\t accused  in<br \/>\nthe said case. This contention is not tenable in as much  as<br \/>\nthe  pardon  granted  to the respondent,  Jagjit  Singh\t was<br \/>\naccepted by him and other approver, Gurvinder Singh who were<br \/>\nexamined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in the court of the Committing<br \/>\nMagistrate.  These approvers, of course, resiled from  their<br \/>\nstatement in the court of the Committing Magistrate. It\t has<br \/>\ntherefore,  been  submitted  that  the\tprosecution   cannot<br \/>\nexamine\t him  as a witness in the said case as he  has\tcast<br \/>\naway  the  pardon granted to him. This\tsubmission,  in\t our<br \/>\nconsidered opinion, is not tenable in as much as sub-section<br \/>\n(4)  of\t Section 306 of Code of Criminal  Procedure  clearly<br \/>\nenjoins that a person accepting a tender of pardon has to be<br \/>\nexamined as a witness in the court of the Magistrate  taking<br \/>\ncognizance  of the offence and in the subsequent  trial,  if<br \/>\nany.  It  is therefore, a mandate of the provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nsaid Act to the prosecution to examine the approver to\twhom<br \/>\npardon has been granted as a witness both in the  Committing<br \/>\nCourt  as  well\t as in the trial court It  does\t not  matter<br \/>\nwhether the approver has resiled from his statement and\t has<br \/>\nnot  made  a  full  and true  disclosure  of  whole  of\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances  within his knowledge relating to the  offence<br \/>\nso  long as the Public Prosecutor does not certify  that  in<br \/>\nhis  opinion  the  approver has\t either\t wilfully  concealed<br \/>\nanything  essential or has given false evidence contrary  to<br \/>\nthe condition on which the tender of pardon was made.<br \/>\n    It\thas been next contended that the grant of pardon  is<br \/>\nin  the nature of a contract between the State granting\t the<br \/>\npardon\ton the one hand and the person accepting the  pardon<br \/>\non the other hand. As the State has the power to revoke\t the<br \/>\npardon at any time the approver has also got the  reciprocal<br \/>\nright  to  cast\t away  the  pardon  granted  to\t him.\tThis<br \/>\nsubmission  is also not tenable. The power to  grant  pardon<br \/>\ncarries with it the right to impose a condition limiting the<br \/>\noperation  of  such a pardon. Hence a  pardoning  power\t can<br \/>\nattach any condition, precedent or subsequent so long as  it<br \/>\nis  not\t illegal,  immoral  or\timpossible  of\tperformance.<br \/>\nSection\t 306  clearly  enjoins that  the  approver  who\t was<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t PG NO 1098<br \/>\ngranted pardon had to comply with the condition of making  a<br \/>\nfull  and true disclosure of the whole of the  circumstances<br \/>\nwithin\this knowledge relative to the offence and  to  every<br \/>\nother  concerned  whether as principal or  abettor,  in\t the<br \/>\ncommission  thereof.   It is because of\t this  mandate,\t the<br \/>\nState can not withdraw the pardon from the approver nor\t the<br \/>\napprover can cast away the pardon granted to him till he  is<br \/>\nexamined  as  a\t witness  by the  prosecution  both  in\t the<br \/>\nCommitting Court as well as in the trial court. The approver<br \/>\nmay  have  resiled  from  the  statement  made\tbefore\t the<br \/>\nMagistrate in the Committing Court and may not have complied<br \/>\nwith the condition on which pardon was granted to him, still<br \/>\nthe prosecution has to examine him as a witness in the trial<br \/>\ncourt. It is only when the Public Prosecutor certifies\tthat<br \/>\nthe  approver has not complied with the conditions on  which<br \/>\nthe   tender  was  made\t by  wilfully  concealing   anything<br \/>\nessential or by giving false evidence, he may be tried under<br \/>\nsection\t 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not only\t for<br \/>\nthe offence in respect of which pardon was granted but\talso<br \/>\nin  respect of other offences. In these\t circumstances,\t the<br \/>\nquestion  of casting away the pardon granted to an  approver<br \/>\nand  his  claim not to be examined by the prosecution  as  a<br \/>\nwitness before the trial court is without any substance.  It<br \/>\nhas  been submitted in this connection by citing a  decision<br \/>\nIn  re\tArusami\t Goundan, AIR 1959  (Madras)  274  that\t the<br \/>\naccomplice  who has been tendered a pardon if at  any  stage<br \/>\neither wilfully conceals material particulars or gives false<br \/>\nevidence and thereby fails to comply with the conditions  on<br \/>\nwhich  pardon  was tendered to him and\tthereby\t incurs\t its<br \/>\nforfeiture he should not be compelled by the prosecution  to<br \/>\nbe examined as a witness before the trial court. It has been<br \/>\nobserved  even\tin  the said case  that\t the  provisions  of<br \/>\nSection\t 337(2) of the old Code of Criminal Procedure,\t1898<br \/>\n(5 of 1898) provide that the approver who has been  tendered<br \/>\npardon must be examined both in the Committing Court and the<br \/>\nCourt of Sessions it has been held that:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;The obligation to make a full and true disclosure would<br \/>\narise whenever the approver is lawfully called upon to\tgive<br \/>\nevidence  touching the matter; it may be in  the  Committing<br \/>\ncourt,\tor,  it\t may  be in  he\t Sessions  Court.  But,\t the<br \/>\nobligation  to make a full and true disclosure rests on\t the<br \/>\napprover at every stage at which he can be lawfully required<br \/>\nto  give  evidence.  If\t at any\t stage\the  either  wilfully<br \/>\nconceals  material  particulars or gives false\tevidence  he<br \/>\nwould  failed  to comply with the conditions  on  which\t the<br \/>\npardon\twas  tendered  to  him\tand  thereby  incurred\t its<br \/>\nforfeiture.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Neither as a matter of reason or logic, nor as a  matter<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t PG NO 1099<br \/>\nof statutory interpretation can it be said that S. 339(1) is<br \/>\ndependent  on or connected with S. 337(2) in the sense\tthat<br \/>\nthe  approver must be examined both in the Committing  Court<br \/>\nand  the  Sessions Court before it can be held that  he\t has<br \/>\nforfeited  his\tpardon.\t It is sufficient  if  he  fails  to<br \/>\nconform\t to  the  conditions on which the  pardon  has\tbeen<br \/>\ngranted to him at either stage.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    This decision has been considered in Emperor v. Shandino<br \/>\nDhaniparto,  AIR  1940 (Sind) 114 wherein it has  been\theld<br \/>\nthat:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;When  an  accused\tafter accepting\t pardon\t denies\t all<br \/>\nknowledge of facts before the Committing Magistrate and\t the<br \/>\ncase  is  committed to Sessions Court the pardon  cannot  be<br \/>\nforfeited  before  the accused is examined in  the  Sessions<br \/>\nCourt.\tOnce  a pardon is tendered and accepted,  S.  337(2)<br \/>\nrenders\t it  obligatory for the prosecution to\texamine\t the<br \/>\napprover  both in the Committing Magistrate s Court  and  in<br \/>\nthe Sessions Court should the case be committed. Failure  of<br \/>\nthe  prosecution  to examine the approver  in  the  Sessions<br \/>\nCourt vitiates the trial.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t provisions of Sections 337 and 339 of the old\tCode<br \/>\nof Criminal Procedure are almost in identical terms with the<br \/>\nprovisions  of Sections 306 and 308 of the Code of  Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure, 1973. This submission on a plain reading of these<br \/>\nsections, cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<p>    It\thas  been  urged  with\tgreat  vehemence  that\t the<br \/>\nappellant,  Jagjit Singh was granted pardon with  regard  to<br \/>\ncase  F.I.R. No. 238 of 1985 whereas his name appears as  an<br \/>\naccused in the other four cases which have been directed  to<br \/>\nbe tried along with above case wherein the facts are  almost<br \/>\nsimilar. The appellant-approver in such circumstances should<br \/>\nnot  be examined by the prosecution as a witness in as\tmuch<br \/>\nas  his\t evidence may be used in the  other  criminal  cases<br \/>\nwherein\t he  figures  as an accused.  This  is\tagainst\t the<br \/>\nprotection  given  by Article 2(3) of  the  Constitution  of<br \/>\nIndia.\tIt  has, therefore, been submitted  that  the  order<br \/>\ndated April 27, 1987 passed in Revision Petition No. 221  of<br \/>\n1986  directing the State not to examine the approver  as  a<br \/>\nwitness should not be set aside. This contention is also not<br \/>\ntenable\t in  as much as once an accused\t is  granted  pardon<br \/>\nunder  section\t306 of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  he<br \/>\nceases\tto  be\tan accused and becomes\ta  witness  for\t the<br \/>\nprosecution. The only condition imposed by the provisions of<br \/>\nthe  Act  is  that the approver must make a  full  and\ttrue<br \/>\ndisclosure  of\tthe whole of the  circumstances\t within\t his<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t PG NO 1100<br \/>\nknowledge  relating  to\t the  offence  and  to\tevery  other<br \/>\nconcerned,   whether  as  principal  or\t abettor,   in\t the<br \/>\ncommission  thereof.  So long as the  Prosecution  does\t not<br \/>\ncertify\t that  he has failed to do so he continues to  be  a<br \/>\nwitness\t and the prosecution is under obligation to  examine<br \/>\nhim as a witness both in the Committing Court as well as  in<br \/>\nthe trial court. This has been made very clear by this Court<br \/>\nin the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/446598\/\">A.J. Peiris v. State of Madras, AIR<\/a>  1954(SC)<br \/>\n616 wherein it has been observed that:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;&#8230;..We  think that the moment the pardon was  tendered<br \/>\nto  the accused he must be presumed to have been  discharged<br \/>\nwhereupon he ceased to be an accused and became a witness.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    We have already held hereinbefore that sub-section 4  of<br \/>\nSection\t 306  casts  an obligation  on\tthe  prosecution  to<br \/>\nexamine the approver both in the Committing Court as well as<br \/>\nin  the trial court. So the appellant who has  been  granted<br \/>\npardon\tin case F.I.R. No. 238\/85 has to be examined by\t the<br \/>\nprosecution in the trial court no matter that he has resiled<br \/>\nfrom  his  earlier statement and tried to conceal  what\t was<br \/>\nwithin his knowledge with regard to the offence in question.<br \/>\nIt  will  be pertinent to mention here Section\t132  of\t the<br \/>\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 which lays down that:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;A\twitness\t shall\tnot be excused\tfrom  answering\t any<br \/>\nquestion as to any matter relevant to the matter in issue in<br \/>\nany  suit or in any civil or criminal proceedings, upon\t the<br \/>\nground\tthat the answer to such question will criminate,  or<br \/>\nmay tend directly or indirectly to criminate, such  witness,<br \/>\nor  that it will expose, or tend directly or  indirectly  to<br \/>\nexpose, such witness to a penalty or forfeiture of any kind.<br \/>\n    Proviso-  Provided that no such answer, which a  witness<br \/>\nshall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any  arrest<br \/>\nor   prosecution,  or  be  against  him\t in   any   criminal<br \/>\nproceeding,  except a prosecution for giving false  evidence<br \/>\nby such answer.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Therefore,\ta  witness is legally bound  to\t answer\t any<br \/>\nquestion  which is relevant to the matter in issue  even  if<br \/>\nthe  answer  to\t such question is likely  to  criminate\t him<br \/>\ndirectly  or  indirectly. Proviso to Section  132  expressly<br \/>\nprovides  that such answer which a witness is  compelled  to<br \/>\ngive  shall  not subject him to any  arrest  or\t prosecution<br \/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t PG NO 1101<br \/>\nnor  the  same\tcan be proved against him  in  any  criminal<br \/>\nproceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence by<br \/>\nsuch answer. The provisions of proviso to Section 132 of the<br \/>\nIndian\tEvidence  Act clearly protect a witness\t from  being<br \/>\nprosecuted  on\tthe basis of the answers given by him  in  a<br \/>\ncriminal proceeding which tend to criminate him directly  or<br \/>\nindirectly.  In view of this provision, the apprehension  of<br \/>\nthe  respondent that his evidence as approver will  be\tused<br \/>\nagainst\t him  in  the other four  criminal  cases  where  he<br \/>\nfigures\t as  an accused is without any basis. On  the  other<br \/>\nhand,  he is absolutely protected from criminal\t prosecution<br \/>\non  the\t basis\tof  the evidence to be\tgiven  by  him\twhen<br \/>\nexamined by the prosecution as an approver in the said case.<br \/>\nThis  submission  of  the  respondent  is,  therefore,\t not<br \/>\ntenable.  It  is pertinent to refer in this  connection\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of  this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/563592\/\">Laxmipat Choraria  and  Ors.  v.<br \/>\nState  of Maharashtra.<\/a> [1968] 2 SCR 626 wherein it has\tbeen<br \/>\nobserved by Hidayatullah, J as he then was that:\n<\/p>\n<p>    &#8220;&#8230;&#8230;.\tUnder s. 132 a witness shall not be  excused<br \/>\nfrom answering any question as to any matter relevant to the<br \/>\nmatter\tin issue in any criminal proceeding  (among  others)<br \/>\nupon  the  ground  that the answer  to\tsuch  question\twill<br \/>\nincriminate or may tend directly or indirectly to expose him<br \/>\nto  a  penalty or forfeiture of any kind. The  safeguard  to<br \/>\nthis compulsion is that no such answer which the witness  is<br \/>\ncompelled  to give exposes him to any arrest or\t prosecution<br \/>\nor can ii be prove i against him in any criminal proceeding<br \/>\nexcept\ta  prosecution\tfor giving false  evidence  by\tsuch<br \/>\nanswer.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>    So Section 132 of the Evidence Act sufficiently protects<br \/>\nhim since his testimony does not go against him.<br \/>\n    For\t the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is  allowed.\t The<br \/>\njudgment  and order dated April 27, 1987 passed in  Revision<br \/>\nPetition No. 221 of 1986 is hereby set aside.\n<\/p>\n<pre>R.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 598, 1988 SCR Supl. (3)1093 Author: B Ray Bench: Ray, B.C. (J) PETITIONER: STATE (DELHI ADMN.) Vs. RESPONDENT: JAGJIT SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/12\/1988 BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) OJHA, N.D. (J) CITATION: 1989 AIR [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22329","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-13T16:15:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-13T16:15:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988\"},\"wordCount\":2856,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988\",\"name\":\"State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-13T16:15:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-13T16:15:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988","datePublished":"1988-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-13T16:15:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988"},"wordCount":2856,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988","name":"State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-13T16:15:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-delhi-admn-vs-jagjit-singh-on-15-december-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22329","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22329"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22329\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22329"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22329"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}