DAHYA REVLA Vs. REVA CHHITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) * * * *

(2.) MR. Vin, the learned advocate for the appellants, urged that the respondent No. 1 Reva had in his own evidence admitted about the falsity of the material statements made in his complaint Ex. 17 and that the same were even actually found by the learned Sessions Judge to be false and imaginary. He, therefore, contended that as a result of such a false information given to the Police Patel they had to face a trial in the Court of Sessions and that too in regard to a very serious charge such as of robbery punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. In those circumstances, there would not arise any question of pity on the mere ground that he was an illiterate and stupid person acting under the guidance of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as observed by the learned Sessions Judge. He also contended that in the interest of justice such a person should have been brought to book and that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in not taking any action whatever against him. So far as respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, he contended that they knew full well about the falsity of the complaint for the reason that respondent No. 1 accompanied by respondent No. 2 had gone to give information about the incident to respondent No. 3 on the previous day and that though respondent No. 1 was asked not to file any such complaint on the trivial grounds, on the next day the complaint came to be recorded in respect of the same incident and that way they are said to have abetted the commission of the crime said to have been committed by respondent No. 1. He, therefore, urged that action should be taken against them as well and the interests of justice demand the same.

(3.) NOW in the first place it was pointed out by Mr. Desai, the learned advocate for the respondents that of the three charges sought to be levelled against the respondents, the question of prosecuting them for offences under Sections 182 and 195 of the Indian Penal Code would not arise in view of Sub-section (6) of Section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. In support thereof he invited a reference to the decision in the case of Shabir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra, and that the matter would then require to be considered only in relation to the offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from authority, it appears clear from Section 479-A and Sub-section (6) thereof that no proceedings can be taken under Section 476 against a person for giving or fabricating false evidence, if in respect of such a person proceedings can be taken under Section 479-A of the Code. Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code relates to a person giving or fabricating false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence. Thus, in respect of an offence falling under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code, no proceeding can be taken under Section 476 since the learned Sessions Judge has declined to take any action under Section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case referred to by Mr. Desai lays down that bearing in mind the non-obstante clause at the commencement of Section 479-A and the provisions of Sub-section (6) it would follow that only the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 479-A must be resorted to by the Court for the purpose of making a complaint against a person for intentionally giving false evidence or for intentionally fabricating false evidence at any stage of the proceeding before it. Besides, it has been observed that the provisions of Section 476 to Section 479 are totally excluded where an offence is of the kind specified in Section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, It is, therefore, clear that the application under Section 476 for taking any proceeding against the respondents in regard to an offence falling under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be availed of. The same view has been repeated by the Supreme Court in a subsequent decision in the case of Babu Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, except in respect of an offence falling under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.