AKILANDAMMAL Vs. S BALASUBRAMANIA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the first defendant in O. S. No. 75 of 1958 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tirumangalam, against the order of the learned District judge of Madurai directing a complaint to be laid against her offences under Ss. 467 and 471 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE respondent herein filed O. S. 75 of 1958 on the foot of a mortgage dated 10-4-1945 for Rs. 2150 executed in his favour by the petitioner herein. The petitioner put forward a receipt Ex. B. 1 for a sum of Rs. 2000 on 9-4-1958 as evidencing payment of that amount towards the mortgage. The trial court held that the receipt Ex. B. 1 was a forged document. The petitioner, who examined herself as a witness, stated that Ex. B. 1 was a forged document. The petitioner, who examined herself as a witness, stated that Ex. B. 1 was a genuine receipt given to her by the respondent. The two attestors to the receipt Ex. B. 1 and the scribe also gave evidence in support of the genuineness of Ex. B. 1 but we are not concerned with them in this petition. The trial court did not take action under S. 479-A Cr. P. C. Eight months after the disposal of the suit the respondent filed a petition No. 71 of 1960 before the learned District Munsif, Tirumangalam, praying that a complaint might be preferred against he petitioner under Section 476 (1)Cr. P. C. The trial court was of the view that s. 479-A Cr. P. C. was applicable not only for giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence but also to cases in which forged documents were used as genuine documents. As no action was taken at the time of the delivery of the judgment, the trial court held that action could not be taken under Section 476 Cr. P. C. It also held that as the complaint was filed belatedly, 8 months after the judgment was pronounced, it was not expedient in the interest of justice that the petitioner should be prosecuted for the offence complained of. On appeal the learned District Judge, Madurai, held that the ban imposed under S. 479-A (6) Cr. P. C. would apply to witnesses only and not to a party, who happened to be a witness. He also held that the delay of 8 months was not a sufficient ground for refraining form giving a complaint. In the result the learned District Judge directed that a complaint be laid against he petitioner. (2) Section 195 (1), clauses (b) and (c) Cr. P. C. are as follows:

(3.) A reading of clauses (b) and (c) of Section 195 (1), Ss. 476 and 479-A makes it clear that when proceedings could be taken under S. 479-A proceedings under S. 476 are forbidden. S. 476, Cr. P. C. provides the procedure for a civil court making a complaint in respect of offences referred to in S. 195, sub-section (1) clauses (b)and (c), whereas Section 479-A is restricted in its scope and confined only to offences of intentionally giving false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or intentionally fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding. Regarding cases, which do not strictly fall under S. 479-A, the procedure prescribed in S. 476, Cr. P. C. can be followed.