M P PAUL Vs. A M ALI MOHEMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of law arising in this Criminal Revision Petition is: what is the true meaning and scope of Section 476, Criminal Procedure Codp in the context of Section 479-A (1) and (6), Criminal Procedure Code, with regard to a prosecution authorised by a court in respect of an offence of periurv committed before it in the course of the trial?

(2.) THIS question came up for consideration before this Court on account oi a complaint which was directed to be launched by the Addl. Munsif-Rent Controller Ernakulam under Sections 195 (1) (b) and 476 (1), Criminal Procedure Code in respect of offences under Sections 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code before the District Magistratp (Judicial), Ernakulam, against the petitioner. The 1st respondent instituted a proceeding under Section H of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the petitioner for eviction out of a building which the 1st respondent leased to him. before the Munsif Rent Controller. In the course of that proceeding, the petitioner filed two interlocutor applications one I. A-No. 3476 of 1969 and the other I. A. No, 6173 of 1969 along with two vouchers marked as Exts. D7 and B8 in support of his case that a sum of Rs. 85. 60 expended by him towards the repairs of the building in question had been adiusted towards the arrears of rent due to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent examined as C. P. W. 4 denied the execution of the vouchers as well as the alleged adiustment. The petitioner, however, maintained that the averment in his affidavits were true and that the adiustment was supported by Exts. D7 and D8. The petitioner also save evidence before the Munsif-Rent Controller to that effect. The petition for eviction was finallv disposed of holding the contentions of the petitioner were not tenable- During the pendency of that petition and iust before the final order was passed, the 1st respondent filed I. A 2943 of 1972 out of which this revision petition has arisen praving the Munsif-Rent Controller to institute Drosecution against the petitioner under Section 476 (1) Criminal P. C. in respect of the offence of periurv alleged to have been committed by the petitioner during the eviction proceeding pending before the same Court for the alleged swearing of false affidavits and giving evidence before that Court in support of those affidavits. The learned Munsif-Rent Controller had no word to sav in the final order passed in the eviction proceeding whether the petitioner committed an offencp of periurv or not on account of his swearing to false affidavits or on account of giving false evidence before the Court.

(3.) IN cases of certain offences affecting the administration of iustice the procedure prescribed in Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be followed. In respect of offences enumerated in Section 195 (1) (b) and (c) the offenders shall be proceeded against according to the procedure provided for in Section 476. If a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion, that it is expedient in the interests of iustice that an enauirv should be made into any offencp referred to in Section 195 (1) (b) or (c) which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court such court mav, after such Preliminarv enauirv. if any , as it thinks necessarv. record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing and forward the same to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction. Section 476 A authorises a superior Court to make a complaint where a subordinate Court has omitted to do so in respect of offences and in the circumstances mentioned in Section 476 (1 ). Section 476 B provides for a right of appeal against the order making or refusing to make a complaint. Sections 478 and 479 deal with the procedure which may be followed in certain grave offences. Section 479 A which was added by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act. 26 of 1955 by the first sub-section reads as follows: 479a- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 476 to 479 inclusive, when any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stase of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding, and that, for the eradication of the evils of periury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of ius-tice it is expedient that such witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him the Court shall, at the time of the delivery of the iudgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefor and mav, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court setting forth the evidence which in the opinion of the Court, is false or fabricated and forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having iurisdiction, and mav, if the accused is present before the Court, take sufficient security for his appearance before such Magistrate and may bind over any person to appear and eive evidence before such Magistrate: Provided that where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, the complaint may be signed by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint. Explanation, For the purposes of this sub-section a Presidency Magistrate shall be deemed to ho a Magistrate of the first class. Sub-section (6) of this Section provides as follows: (6) No Proceedings shall be taken under Section 476 to 479 inclusivp for the prosecution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence, if in respect of such a person proceedings may be taken under this Section.