EMPEROR Vs. NINGAPA RAMAPPA KURBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Belgaum directing under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the prosecution of the applicants for an offence of giving false evidence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE case, to my mind, raises an important question as to the principles on which the Court should sanction a prosecution in cases of this kind. Under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Court must be satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195, which includes offences under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code; so that we have to be satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice that there should be a prosecution.

(3.) NOW, to my mind, in determining that question it is absolutely essential that the Court should make up its mind whether it was the statement before the Magistrate under Section 164, or the statement subsequently made in Court, which was false. J. gather from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he is disposed to think that it was the statement made under Section 164 which was false; but there is really no evidence to enable us to determine which of the two statements was false. If the statement in Court was false, then I agree that in the interests of justice there should be a prosecution; but supposing it was the statement under Section 164 which was false, what then? No doubt, a man making a statement on oath before a Magistrate under Section 164 should speak the truth; but if he does not, the least he can do is to tell the truth when subsequently he goes into the witness-box. To prosecute a man who has resiled from a false statement made under Section 164 is to encourage him in the belief that it pays to tell a lie and stick to it. It is far better that a man should escape punishment for having made a false statement under Section 164 than that he should be induced to believe that it is to his interest, however false the statement may have been, to adhere to it, and thereby save himself from prosecution. The danger of such a course leading to the conviction of innocent persons is too great to be risked. The learned Government Header contends that if a prosecution is not sanctioned in a case of this kind, the practice of taking statements under Section 164 may as well be abandoned. If that result follows, I am by no means satisfied that it will be a bad thing.