RAGHUBIR PROSAD DUDHEWALLA Vs. CHAMANLAL MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is against a decision of the Calcutta High Court.

(2.) The appellant was examined as a witness for the prosecution in the court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, in a case instituted by one Mayadas Khanna against the respondent. Chamanlal Mehra and two other persons under ss. 504 and 506 of the Penal Code. That case ended in the acquittal of the accused persons on May 10, 1957. One June 28, 1957 an application was made in the Magistrates court under s. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that this appellant and some of the other witnesses, including Mayadas Khanna, examined for the prosecution in that case had "given false evidence and/or have fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in proceedings before the Court and have used false and or fabricated evidence as genuine and/or have forged document and/or have used as genuine forged document and each of the accused had abetted others in commission of these offences," and praying that after the necessary enquiry a complaint be made to the Chief Presidency Magistrate against them for the offences committed by these acts. It appears that the learned Magistrate Mr. Jahangir Kabir who had disposed of the criminal case against Chamanlal Mehra was no longer available and the application under s. 476 was transferred by the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the file of Mr. J. M. Bir, Presidency Magistrate, for disposal. For this purpose the Chief Presidency Magistrate nominated Mr. J. M. Bir as successor of the trying Magistrate. Mr. Bir was of opinion that s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a complete bar against any action being taken by him in respect of this appellant and others who were merely witnesses on the side of the complaint in the criminal case. He therefore directed a complaint to be lodged only against Mayadas Khanna, the complainant, in the criminal case under s. 504 and s. 506 of the Penal Code and rejected the application as against the rest.

(3.) On appeal by Chamanlal Mehra against the Magistrates refusal to make complaint against the other persons the High Court of Calcutta held that s. 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure had no application to the offence of committing forgery or being a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit forgery. The High Court considering it expedient in the interests of justice that a complaint should be made against this appellant in respect of an offence under s. 467 and s. 467/120-B of the Penal Code that he appeared to have committed, set aside the order of the Magistrate in respect of this appellant and made an order that such a complaint be made.