K SASI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner herein is the sole accused in C.C.No.721/2001 of the Court of Judicial First Class magistrate-1, Hosdurg. The above case was instituted upon annexure-A complaint wherein the allegation is that the petitioner herein was a witness in a section 202 of Cr.P.C. enquiry conducted in the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Hosdurg before setting up S.C.No. 219/1999 in the court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Hosdurg, Kanhangad and in that enquiry, when he was examined, it is alleged that he has made false statement. On the basis of the said allegation, a complaint was filed by the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg under section 195 of Cr.P.C. in the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Hosdurg. It is the above complaint impugned in this Crl.M.C.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that annexure A complaint is not sustainable either on law or on the facts and circumstances of the case as the same is against various provisions contained in the Cr.P.C. It is averred in the memorandum of Crl.M.C that the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg has no jurisdiction or authority to lodge a complaint under section 195 of Cr.P.C. for the reason that section 202 enquiry was not conducted before that court. It is further submitted that in view of section 352 of Cr.P.C. no judge of a criminal court or Magistrate shall try any person for any offence referred to in section 195, when such offence is committed before himself or in contempt of his authority or is brought under his notice as such Judge or Magistrate in the course of a judicial proceeding unless as provided in sections 344, 345, 349 and 350 of Cr.P.C. According to the petitioner, in the present case, the so called offence was alleged to have been committed in the court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Hosdurg where the 202 enquiry was conducted. But now C.C.No.721/2001 is instituted in the same court based upon annexure A complaint and the institution of such case itself is diametrically opposed to the provisions contained in section 352 of Cr.P.C. It is also argued by the counsel for the petitioner that going by annexure-A complaint, there is nothing to infer as to whether the court applied its mind regarding the second condition contained in section 340 so as to come into a conclusion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to make an inquiry into the false evidence alleged to have been given by the petitioner etc. Thus according to the counsel appearing for the petitioner, annexure-A complaint and all proceedings instituted thereon are unsustainable either on facts or on law involved in the case.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner Sri.P. Vijayabhanu as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.