9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Applicability of Section 479A Cr.P.C. to affidavits. 2. Correctness of the charge under Section 193 I.P.C. instead of Section 199 I.P.C. 3. Procedure for filing a complaint for perjury. Detailed Analysis 1. Applicability of Section 479A Cr.P.C. to Affidavits The central issue in this case was whether Section 479A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) could be applied to instances where false evidence was presented in the form of an affidavit. The petitioner argued that Section 479A could not apply since he did not appear before the court as a witness but only filed an affidavit. The court noted that Section 479A was introduced to provide a summary procedure for prosecuting perjury, avoiding the elaborate process under Section 476 Cr.P.C. Section 479A specifies that it applies to "any person appearing before it as a witness" who has intentionally given false evidence or fabricated false evidence. The court interpreted this to mean that the section applies only to persons who physically appear before the court to give oral evidence or produce documents. The court stated, "the words 'any person appearing before it as a witness' qualify both the clauses, namely (1) has intentionally given false evidence, etc. and (2) has intentionally fabricated false evidence." The court disagreed with the previous interpretation by Kailasam J., which suggested that the words "appearing before it" could include those who tender evidence without physically appearing. The court emphasized that affidavits, while considered evidence under certain statutes, do not equate to oral evidence given in court. The court concluded that Section 479A should not apply to affidavits, as it is designed for cases involving direct oral testimony or document production by witnesses in court. 2. Correctness of the Charge under Section 193 I.P.C. Instead of Section 199 I.P.C. The petitioner contended that the offence charged should fall under Section 199 I.P.C. and not Section 193 I.P.C. The court upheld the magistrate's view that the complaint disclosed an offence under Section 193 I.P.C., which deals with giving false evidence in judicial proceedings. The court found no merit in the petitioner's objection on this ground. 3. Procedure for Filing a Complaint for Perjury The court examined the procedural correctness of filing a complaint under Section 479A Cr.P.C. The magistrate had followed the direction of Kailasam J., who had issued a notice to the petitioner and, upon being unsatisfied with the explanation, directed the filing of a complaint. The court noted that Section 479A provides a summary procedure, where the court can decide to file a complaint at the time of delivering the judgment in the main proceeding, without a preliminary inquiry. However, the court emphasized that Section 479A applies only to witnesses who physically appear before the court. Since the petitioner had only filed an affidavit, the proper procedure should have been under Section 476 Cr.P.C., which involves a preliminary inquiry. The court stated, "It is essential that the person concerned should be given an opportunity, in the shape of a preliminary inquiry like the one provided in Section 476, before the court comes to a conclusion that he has deliberately made a false statement." The court referenced previous judgments, including State v. Ugan Singh and Kalipada Maity v. Sukumai Bose, which supported the view that Section 479A requires physical appearance by the witness. The court concluded that the procedure adopted for filing the complaint against the petitioner under Section 479A was not in accordance with law. Therefore, the complaint should have been filed under Section 476 Cr.P.C. Conclusion The court set aside the order of the lower court and allowed the revision case, concluding that the proper procedure for prosecuting the petitioner should have been under Section 476 Cr.P.C. and not Section 479A Cr.P.C. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the specific procedural requirements for different types of evidence and the necessity of a preliminary inquiry for affidavits.
|
