C P KASI THEVAR Vs. CHINNIAH KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision filed against the order of the District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram in Crl. R. P. No. 29 of 1958.

(2.) The Circumstances under which this revision is filed are these: In C.C. No. 762 of 1958, on the file of the Sub-Magistrate of Tirupattur, the petitioner herein, i.e., Kasi Thevar, was the third accused. The respondent herein, i.e., Chinniah Konar was examined as prosecution witness 4 in the case. On behalf of the petitioner P.W. 4 was cross-examined and in the cross-examination a suggestion was put namely whether P.W. 4 did not file a tender in Keelasevalpatti Panchayat Board and whether the tender of the third accused (Petitioner) was not accepted in preference to that of P.W.4 and whether P.W. 4 did not give a petition against accused 3 in that case and the executive officer. The witness denied all these suggestion and stated that he filed a tender in Keelasevalpati and that it was wrong to suggest that the tender of the third accused was accepted. He also added that it is wrong that he gave a petition against the third accused and the executive officer regarding that matter. He denied that the is speaking to a falsehood regarding that matter. C.C. No. 762 of 1958 ended in acquittal. The order of acquittal was passed on 19-5-1958. About two months later i.e., on 16-7-1958, the petitioner herein i.e., Kasi Thevar, after obtaining the necessary documents, put in a petition before the Sub-Magistrate who tried C. C. No. 762 of 1958, i.e., before the Sub- Magistrate, Tirupattur, stating that the respondent herein has committed perjury in the previous case i.e., C. C. No. 762 of 1958, and that a complaint should be laid against him for the offence of perjury. The magistrate, after issuing notice to P.W. 4 in that case, that is, to the respondent herein, held an inquiry in the course of which the petitioner herein produced the relevant documents to establish that the respondent committed perjury in the previous case. The court, after satisfying itself that the respondent committed perjury in C. C. No. 762 of 1958 when he made the statement that the third accused's tender was not accepted in preference to his and that he made no complaint whatsoever, filed a complaint under S. 476, Criminal P.C. The Additional First Class Magistrate, Devakottai, before whom the complaint was filed, dismissed the complaint holding that this complaint should have been filed under S. 479A, Criminal P.C., and cl. (6) of S. 479A is a bar to proceedings under Ss. 476 to 479. Against the said order a revision was filed before the District Magistrate, who following the decision of the Allahabad High Court, in Jai Bir Singh v. Malkhan Singh, confirmed the order of the First Class Magistrate and dismissed the revision. It is against the said order that this revision has been filed.

(3.) From the facts narrated above it is quite clear that when the Sub-Magistrate disposed of the case in C.C. No. 762 of 1958, i.e., when he delivered the judgment on 19-5-1958, there was no material from which he could have formed an opinion that the respondent had given false evidence. It was only a suggestion made by the petitioner herein to the respondent when he was in the witness box and the suggestion was denied by the witness. Beyond this suggestion and the denial by the witness there was no material brought to the notice of the court from which the court can form an opinion as to whether the witness was telling a falsehood or speaking to a truth. The suggestion may be well-founded or may be ill-founded. The denial may be right or may be wrong. It was in this state of uncertainty without any clinching circumstance to prove either way, that the evidence of the respondent as P.W. 4 has to be judged. Thus, at the time when the Sub-Magistrate delivered the judgment, it cannot be said that the magistrate had material to form an opinion that the evidence of the respondent as P.W. 4 was false.