JAI BIR SINGH Vs. MALKHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jabir Singh has filed this revision application against the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Bulandshahr directing the filing of a complaint against the applicant for his prosecution for perjury.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision application are that one Malkhan Singh was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 382, I.P.C., and the applicant Jabir Singh was examined in that case as a prosecution witness. In cross-examination he was asked to state whether or not he had been convicted under the Martial Law and sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months having spent that period in Agra Jail. The applicant denied that he was ever convicted and confined in Agra jail. The question was not put apparently with a view to check the credibility of the witness. Malkhan' Singh was acquitted in that case. Thereafter he moved under Section 476, Cr. P. C., the Magistrate who tried him requesting that Court to make a preliminary inquiry and file a complaint for the prosecution of the applicant for perjury. It appears that evidence was given before the learned Magistrate to prove that the applicant was convicted and was confined as a prisoner in Agra Central Jail. The learned Magistrate, however, did not file a complaint but dismissed the application under Section 476, Cr. P. C. on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 479A(6) Cr. P. C., the provisions of Section 476, Cr. P. C., could not be invoked. Malkhan Singh filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, under Section 476B, Cr. P. C. The appeal was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge who directed that a complaint be made against the applicant for the offence of perjury. Thereupon the present revision application was filed in this Court.

(3.) Two points were urged before the learned Sessions Judge and the same have been urged before me. The first point is that in view of Section 479A(6), no Court has jurisdiction to file a complaint in respect of an offence of perjury otherwise than at the time of disposing of the case in which the offence of perjucy has been committed, and it was submitted that the provisions of Section 476, Cr. P. C. would not be applicable to a case of perjury at all. The second point argued was that considering the facts of the case it is not expedient in the interests of justice to prosecute the applicant for an offence of perjury.