1962 (9) TMI 84 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, could take cognizance of a complaint for an offence under Section 193 IPC without following the procedure laid down in Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The interpretation and application of Sections 476 to 479 and Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the context of false evidence.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Cognizance of Complaint under Section 193 IPC:
The primary issue was whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, could take cognizance of a complaint against the appellant for an offence under Section 193 IPC without the Additional Sessions Judge following the procedure in Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant was a prosecution witness in a murder trial and made contradictory statements before the Committing Magistrate and the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, after the trial, directed the prosecution of the appellant for perjury due to these contradictory statements. However, the Chief Presidency Magistrate discharged the appellant, citing non-compliance with Section 479-A procedures. The High Court reversed this decision, but the Supreme Court ultimately held that the Chief Presidency Magistrate was correct in discharging the appellant due to the procedural non-compliance.

2. Interpretation and Application of Sections 476 to 479 and Section 479-A Cr.P.C.:
The case involved interpreting whether Section 479-A Cr.P.C. provides an exclusive procedure for dealing with false evidence, thereby excluding the application of Sections 476 to 479 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court analyzed the legislative intent behind Section 479-A, which was introduced to deal with perjury more expeditiously and effectively. It emphasized that Section 479-A contains a non-obstante clause and specific procedural requirements, including the necessity for the court to record a finding at the time of the judgment if it believes false evidence was given. The Court concluded that Section 479-A overrides Sections 476 to 479 in cases of false evidence given during judicial proceedings, making it the exclusive procedure for such cases. The Court rejected the argument that the court could choose between Section 479-A and Section 476, emphasizing that the jurisdiction to make a complaint arises solely from the occurrence of false evidence in the judicial proceeding and must follow the specific procedure laid down in Section 479-A.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate was correct in discharging the appellant due to the non-compliance with Section 479-A procedures by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court's decision to set aside the discharge and direct the Chief Presidency Magistrate to proceed under Sections 476 to 479 was erroneous. The appeal was allowed, reinforcing that Section 479-A provides an exclusive and mandatory procedure for dealing with cases of false evidence given during judicial proceedings.