RUKMANI BAI Vs. C.R. GOVINDASWAMY CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN disposing of the suit, O.S. No. 696 of 1958, the learned City Civil Judge at Madras directed a complaint to be filed against the defendant in the suit and D.W. 1, a witness examined on the side of the defendant for offences under Sections 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code. He found that D.W. 1 was responsible for bringing about a forged document, and that both defendant and D.W. 1 perjured and gave deliberately false evidence before the Court. In his view, in the interests of justice, it is expedient that both of them should be prosecuted. This direction was given by the learned Judge presumably under the provisions of Section 479 -A, Criminal Procedure Code. The point that is now raised before me is whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrant the filing of the complaint and whether the provisions of Section 479 -A, Criminal Procedure Code have been strictly complied with.

(2.) THE suit, O.S. No. 696 of 1958, was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,644 from the defendant. The defendant, a lady, took on lease a theatre known as Kothandarama Talkies in West Mambalam for exhibition of films on a monthly rental of Rs. 250. The theatre belonged to the plaintiff. She also hired from the plaintiff the furniture and other equipments in the theatre agreeing to pay a monthly hire of Rs. 200. The lease of the theatre is dated 1st November, 1954 and the hiring agreement is dated 1st December, 1954. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had paid hire only up to 1st March, 1956 and defaulted to pay hire subsequently. The suit was laid for recovery of the arrears of hire, namely, Rs. 5,000 for a period of 25 months upto the end of 31st March, 1958. The defendant resisted the suit contending that she had paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 as advance and besides the said amount the plaintiff had also received several payments from her, and that there was nothing due by way of arrears of hire under the hiring agreement. In support of her defence, the defendant produced a receipt Exhibit B -1, dated 9th May, 1955 alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff in her favour. The receipt recites as if the plaintiff had received a sum of Rs. 9,000 on 9th May, 1955. The plaintiff's case was that he passed the receipt, Exhibit B -1 only for a sum of Rs. 300 which amount was paid to him through the defendant's clerk, one Kothandam and that subsequently the defendant had altered the figure Rs. 300 into Rs. 2,300 and also interlined a sentence at the end of the receipt before the plaintiff's signature as if the sum of Rs. 9,000 had been received. The last sentence in the receipt reads as follows : "I received to -day Rs. 9,000 as loan to be adjusted towards the rent." D.W. 1 is the father -in -law of the defendant, who was admittedly managing the business affairs of the defendant including the running of the theatre. Both the defendant and D.W. 1 went into the witness -box and deposed that a sum of Rs. 9,000 was paid on the date of the receipt. The learned City Civil Judge found that a mere look of the receipt, Exhibit B -1 would disclose the fact of a material alteration. Of course he disbelieved the evidence of the defendant and D.W. 1. The finding of the learned Judge is thus recorded:

(3.) I entirely agree with the learned City Civil Judge that the case is a fit one for filing a complaint to prosecute the defendant and her witness, D.W. 1 for offences under Sections 193 and 196, Indian Penal Code. It is fairly obvious that the receipt Exhibit B -1 has been materially altered and fabricated by the defendant and her partisans and that the evidence of the defendant and D.W. 1 is perjured testimony. If the order directing the filing of the complaint is in accordance with Section 479 -A,, Criminal Procedure Code or is not in any way irregular or illegal I would have -concurred with the view of the Court below and allowed the prosecution before the Magistrate to take its normal course.