PAUL Vs. ALI MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) This question came up for consideration before this Court on account of a complaint which was directed to be launched by the Addl. Munsif Rent Controller, Ernakulam, under S.195(1)(b) and 476(1), Criminal Procedure Code in respect of offences under S.193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code before the District Magistrate (Judicial), Ernakulam, against the petitioner. The 1st respondent instituted a proceeding under S.11 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 interlocutory applications, one I. A. No. 3476 of 1969 and the other I. A. No. 6173 of 1969 along with two vouchers marked as Ext. D7 and D8 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 adjusted 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 adjustment. The petitioner, however, maintained that the averment in his affidavits were true and that the adjustment was supported by Exts. D7 and D8. The petitioner also gave evidence before the Munsif Rent Controller to that effect. The petition for eviction was finally disposed of holding that the contentions of the petitioner were not tenable. During the pendency of that petition and just before the final order was passed, the 1st respondent filed I. A. 2943 of 1972 out of which this revision petition has arisen praying the Munsif Rent Controller to institute prosecution against the petitioner under S.476(1) Cr. P. C. in respect of the offence of perjury 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 say in the final order passed in the eviction proceeding whether the petitioner committed an offence of perjury 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 justice the procedure prescribed in Chap.35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be followed. In respect of offences enumerated in S.195(1)(b) and (c) the offenders shall be proceeded against according to the procedure provided for in S.476. If a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court is of opinion, that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence referred to in S.195(1)(b) or (c) which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that court such court, may, after such preliminary enquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, 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. S.476A 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 S.476(1). S.476B provides for a right of appeal against the order making or refusing to make a complaint. S.478 and 479 deal with the procedure which may be followed in certain grave offences. S.479A which was added by Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 26 of 1955, by the first sub-section reads as follows: