CHHOTEY LAL Vs. CHARANJIT LAL ANAND ADDL MUNSIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying in effect, for the quashing ol the entire proceedings before the learned Additional Munsif. Banda, who had issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for perjury but, after hearing his explanation, discharged the notice after administering a warning to the petitioner to be careful in future and to tell the truth whenever he appears before courts of law.

(2.) The facts as stated in the affidavit supporting the petition are these. A suit was filed by a man called Baij Nath before the Additional Munsif, Banda the respondent for the recovery of a sum of Rs, 2000/-. The petitioner defended the suit, denied any liability and gave evidence in support of his case. The learned Munsif dismissed Baij Nath's suit by his judgment dated 23-1-1958. Three weeks later he issued a notice on 13-2-1958 directing the petitioner to show cause why proceedings should not; be taken against him for giving false evidence. The petitioner appeared and filed an explanation. After reconsidering the matter the learned Munsif was informed by the petitioner's counsel that he was already feeling repentant. After this statement, the learned Munsif decided to take a lenient view of tile matter and discharged the notice. But he made the following observation in the last sentence of his order : Sri Chhoteylal (the petitioner) is warned to remain careful and to tell truth when he appears before courts of law in future.

(3.) The petition, is not opposed by anyone and consequently there is no counter affidavit. I must therefore proceed on the assumption that the facts stated by the petitioner in his affidavit are correct. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. R. Agra-wal, who argued the case with ability, contended that the entire proceedings before the learned Munsif were without jurisdiction inasmuch as they were initiated after the delivery of the final judgment in the suit. Learned Counsel relied on the language of Section 479A which now governs the initiation of the proceedings for the prosecution of a witness who committed perjury in his evidence before a court. Learned Counsel relied on the following words in this Section : ...The court shall, at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefor and may. if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court setting forth the evidence which, in the opinion of the Court, is false or fabricated and forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction, and may, if the accused is present before the Court, take sufficient security for his appearance before such Magistrate and may bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.