AMBALAL BHAWANISHANKER UPADHYAYA Vs. RASIKLAL MANILAL MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Application under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated October 9, 1986 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1982. By the impugned judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered to acquit the accused persons under Sec. 235(1) for the offences punishable under Sec. 436 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge observed in the operative order of the judgment that as mentioned in para 29 of the judgment, the complainant who is the petitioner herein, deposed falsely and therefore, the learned Judge having taken cognizance thereof ordered to issue a show cause notice under Sec. 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code to the complainant to show cause why he should not be punished for the offence of giving false evidence or having fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence would be used in such proceedings. What is recorded by the learned Judge in his operative part of the judgment and translated reads as under :

(2.) This Court (Coram : J. P. Desai, J. as he was then) by its oral order dated June 13, 1987 ordered to reject the Revision Application so far as it challenged the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The Revision Application, however, came to be admitted so far it relates to relief regarding quashing and setting aside the order dated October 9, 1986 relating to issuance of the notice to the petitioner under Sec. 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court passed the following order, while admitting the Revision to that extent.

(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid, the petitioner has submitted his reply to the show cause notice on July 16, 1987 wherein he has inter alia contended that he has not deposed falsely before the Hon'ble Court nor has fabricated any evidence. In para 5 of his reply, he has also stated that he has not given any false evidence knowingly or wilfully. He, thus, sought to quash the said show cause notice.