BIJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN order under Section 340 Cr. P. C. was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Budhana directing a complaint to be filed against Vijendra Kumar for committing perjury by filing a false affidavit in his court. Aggrieved thereby an appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, which has been dismissed on 5-3-1079. Hence this revision.

(2.) IT appears that an application was filed by Vijendra Kumar under Section 14/16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 in the court of the Prescribed Authority. On 18-2-1977 an order was passed summoning the opposite parties for 43-1977. The case was finally taken up by the Prescribed Authority on 8th March 1977. On that date it was noticed that the opposite parties had no intimation about the case. Consequently fresh notices were ordered to be issued for 4-4-1977. By that date notice had not returned and so the case was directed to be put up on 7-4-1977 awaiting return of notices. On 7-4-1977 it was found that Janeshwar Dass refused to accept notices, whereas Dharmendra Kumar was residing at Merrut and as such it was directed that proceedings be drawn ex parte and the case was ordered to be listed for hearing on 12-4-1977. Ultimately an allotment order was passed on 12-4-1977. On 13-4-1977 an application was moved by the opposite parties for setting aside the ex parte order, on the ground that they had neither refused to accept notice nor had any knowledge of the allotment proceedings. An affidavit was filed in support of their allegations. Vijendra Kumar controverted these facts by filing affidavit, Paper No. 19/l. Shri Kesho Dass Goel, Advocate also filed an affidavit supporting Vijendra Kumar, vide paper No. 22. In these two affidavits it was alleged that the opposite parties had intimation of the case and that their counsel Sri P. C. Jain had inspected the file on 4-4-1977. This application for setting aside the ex parte order under Order 9, Rule 13. C. P. C. was decided on 11th July 1977. The Prescribed Authority held that notices were refused and that the file was illegally inspected by Sri P. C. Jain, Advocate. The restoration application was, therefore, rejected. Aggrieved thereby a revision was filed before the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar which was allowed on 13th September 1977. The order of the Proscribed Authority was set aside.

(3.) IT appears that during the pendency of the proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. an application was filed on 24th June, 1977 under Section 340 Cr. P. C. by the opposite party alleging that. Sri Kesho Dass Goel and Vijendra Kumar have perjured by filing false affidavit, that the file was inspected by Sri P. C. Jain on 4-4-1977. It was alleged that on that date Sri P. C. Jain had not been engaged as counsel for Dharmendra Kumar and that he was actually engaged on 13-7-1977 when the file was inspected. The Prescribed Authority found that Vijendra Kumar had intentionally filed false affidavit in the case and he directed that a complaint be lodged against him. As for Sri Kesho Dass Goel. Advocate, the Court did not take any action against him. Aggrieved thereby Vijendra Kumar filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. which has been dismissed on 5-3-1977. Hence this revision.