STATE Vs. ABOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of the State for the grant of sanction under sub-s.(3) of S.339 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the prosecution of the respondent for the offence of giving false evidence. The respondent accepted the tender of pardon under S.337 Cr. P. C., in a case where he along with three others was prosecuted for the murder of one Rayan. The respondent gave a statement under S.164 Cr. P. C., before the Sub Collector of Malappuarm, Pw. 1 admitting that he had participated along with the other persons in the commission of the offence. Ext. P 2 is the statement recorded under S.164 Cr. P. C. After pardon was granted he was examined in the committing Magistrate's Court. Then he stuck on to the version given by him in Ext. P 2. That statement is Ext. P. 17. When examined in the Sessions Court he went back on his earlier statements. Ext. P. 18 is his deposition in the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused in that case. After the case was over the Public Prosecutor certified that in his opinion the respondent had wilfully given false evidence and gone back on the condition upon which pardon was tendered. He was, therefore, prosecuted for the said offence and the trial resulted in acquittal.

(2.) There can be no manner of doubt that the two statements. Ext. P. 17 given before the committing Magistrate and Ext. P. 18 given before the Sessions Court, are mutually contradictory so that one of them must necessarily be false. Still the prosecution of the respondent, the approver in the case, cannot follow as a matter of course and that is why the legislature has provided that the sanction of the High Court must be obtained before such a prosecution can be entertained.

(3.) The considerations which would weigh with the court in granting such sanction, have been indicated in a number of cases.