VISHNU BHAGWAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 6.2.1978 by which theappellant was convicted under Sections 193/181 of the Indian Penal Code forperjury. In accordance with the provisions of Section 344 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, the appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three monthsand a fine of Rs. 300.00. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was furtherdirected to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The present appeal is an off shoot of Corruption Case No. 29 of 1977, Statev. Radhey Shayam Garg and Others. The arguments which have been advanced inthis case are confined to the interpretation of the provisions of the law. Therefore,I do not deem it appropriate to burden this judgemnt with the detailed facts. Thefacts which are absolutely necessary for disposing of this appeal are recapitulatedas under.

(3.) The appellant, Vishnu Bhagwan was the complainant and the case wasregistered on the complainant's statement dated 3.9.1976. The learned Special Judgecame to the conclusion that the appellant wilfully and knowingly made a falsestatement before the Court with the object of shielding the accused person in thecorruption case. The Court issued a show cause notice and reply to the said noticewas filed on 6.2.1977. In the reply ,it is indicated that the incident had taken placeone and a half years ago. It is also mentioned in the reply that his Statement, ExhibitPW 2/A, Memo-PW 6/P and statement Public Witness 7/A do not form part of the judicialproceedings and Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable to the proceedings before aSpedaIJudge. This argument was rejected by the learned SpedaIJudge. The learnedSpecial Judge arrived at the conclusion that according to the Section '8' of theCriminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, a Spedal Judge can take cognizance ofoffences, without the accused being committed to trial. He also mentioned in hisorder that in trying the accused persons, he has to follow the procedure prescribedby the Code of Criminal Procedure for the trial of warrant cases by the Magistrates.On this understanding of law and procedure the learned Special Judge tried andconvicted the accused appellant.