1. Eight persons have appealed from their conviction under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code of committing a dacoity. The learned Sessions Judge concurring with the unanimous opinion of all the four assessors, held the appellants to be guilty. Dacoity was committed in a market and all the appellants were known to the shopkeepers. Their names were promptly mentioned in the first report. There is nothing that can be urged in favour of the appellants.
2. A point of law was raised as regards one appellant Palati Rai. He was produced before a Magistrate to have his statement recorded as a confession on tender of a pardon. The Magistrate tendered pardon to him but the proceedings indicate that the pardon was not accepted by him. The learned Counsel here argued that the case of Palati Rai came within the provisions of Section 339 of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, Palati Rai could not be tried without a certificate from the Public Prosecutor and in all events could not be jointly tried with the other accused. I have examined the record and am satisfied that the observations of the learned Judge are correct.
3. A tender of pardon was made to Palati Rai but when the Magistrate started recording his statement Palati Rai declared that he knew nothing. Here there was no acceptance of pardon. A pardon would be accepted when the person to whom it is tendered does volunteer to make some statement with reference to the crime. In this case Palati Rai expressed complete ignorance and stated that he was indifferent whether a pardon was granted to him or not. I agree with the lower Court that Palati Rai did not accept the tender of pardon.
4. Under the circumstances the provisions of Section 339 do not apply to his case. The appeals of all the appellants are dismissed.