1971 (3) TMI 127 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant made a false statement in his affidavit dated July 6, 1960.
2. Applicability of Section 479-A, Cr.P.C. to the case.
3. Merits of the case regarding the alleged false statement.
4. The effect of prior proceedings and reports on the current case.
5. Consideration of delay and its impact on the expediency of prosecution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. False Statement in Affidavit:
The primary issue revolves around whether the appellant made a false statement in paragraph 10 of his affidavit dated July 6, 1960, where he claimed he had not acted as Sarpanch until December 7, 1957. The respondent alleged that the appellant had acted as Sarpanch in violation of a stay order. The High Court directed a complaint to be filed against the appellant for perjury based on this alleged false statement.

2. Applicability of Section 479-A, Cr.P.C.:
The appellant argued that no prosecution could be initiated under Section 476 of the Cr.P.C. due to the provisions of Section 479-A, Cr.P.C., which deals with perjury. Section 479-A overrides Sections 476 to 479 and applies when a person appearing as a witness gives false evidence. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, by filing an affidavit, did not appear as a witness before the High Court. Therefore, Section 479-A was inapplicable, and proceedings under Section 476, Cr.P.C. were not barred.

3. Merits of the Case:
The merits of the case were examined in light of the evidence presented. The High Court relied on four receipts and a report indicating that the appellant acted as Sarpanch between June 4 and June 6, 1957. The appellant's explanation that he performed ministerial work while the Sahayak Sarpanch was on leave was not initially accepted. However, the Supreme Court found the explanation plausible and noted that the evidence did not conclusively prove that the appellant acted as Sarpanch.

4. Effect of Prior Proceedings and Reports:
The Supreme Court considered the findings of the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, who had previously investigated the same allegations. Both authorities concluded that there was no sufficient evidence to prosecute the appellant for perjury, and the Sessions Judge emphasized that the possibility of conviction was remote. The Supreme Court gave weight to these findings and noted that the High Court had failed to adequately consider them.

5. Consideration of Delay:
The Supreme Court also considered the long delay of more than ten years since the filing of the affidavit. The Court observed that such a prolonged period militated against the expediency of prosecution for perjury. Additionally, the appellant had already suffered mentally and financially due to the prolonged proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order directing the filing of a complaint against the appellant. The Court emphasized that prosecutions for perjury should be initiated only when there is a deliberate and conscious falsehood on a matter of substance, and there is a reasonable foundation for the charge. The Court found that the material presented did not justify such a prosecution and highlighted the importance of judicial deliberation and consideration of all relevant factors, including prior findings and the impact of delay.