MALAYANAURU ANANTHA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 191/193 I.P.C. The petitioner is the first informant in Crime No. 105 of 2006 of Ponnur Town Police Station relating to offences punishable under Sections 143, 348, 353/149 I.P.C. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet in that crime as C.C. No. 39 of 2007 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ponnur. After trial, the Magistrate pronounced acquittal of all the accused in C.C. No. 39 of 2007. During trial of that case, the petitioner was examined as P.W-1 and he turned hostile to the prosecution and did not support the version contained in F.I.R/his report Ex.P-1. He stated as P.W-1 that he gave report to the police and that Ex.P-1 is his report. It was a case relating to staging of Dharna in front of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus stand. He deposed that he cannot identify the mob who were holding Dharna. In cross-examination by the Assistant Public Prosecutor he admitted that he stated before the police that A-1 along with his associates formed themselves into unlawful assembly and obstructed his duties and all other staff in order to hold a protest and locked the doors of his room while he was discharging his duties and that the accused also abused him in filthy language and that the accused also detained his Deputy Superintendent when he entered into his room for office work. He further volunteers that on that day M.L.A and his associates came to his office and went away and they did not commit any offence.

(2.) After pronouncement of acquittal in C.C. No. 39 of 2007, the lower Court gave show cause notice to the petitioner as to why the Court should not proceed against him under Section 344(1) Cr.P.C for giving false evidence knowingly on oath. After receiving the petitioner's explanation, the lower Court passed the impugned order. The lower Court found that after perusing evidence of the petitioner as P.W-1 and his written report Ex.P-1, it was of the opinion that the accused gave false evidence with an intention to help the accused. Thereupon the said proceedings were taken on file as C.C. No. 17 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 191/193 I.P.C.

(3.) It is contended by senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that since there are no two statements given on oath by the same petitioner contrary to or inconsistent or irreconcilable with each other before the lower Court, the lower Court should not have proceeded against the petitioner for trying offence under Sections 191 I.P.C punishable under Section 193 I.P.C against him. It is further contended that in the absence of any finding of the lower Court in judgment of acquittal dated 16.12.2011 passed in C.C. No. 39 of 2007 to the effect that P.W-1 gave false evidence and is liable to be proceeded for giving false evidence knowingly in Court, further proceedings under Section 344(1) Cr.P.C. should not have been initiated by the lower Court. There is no finding of the lower Court in the judgment in C.C. No. 39 of 2007 to the effect that P.W-1 gave false evidence before that Court; and the lower Court also did not express therein any opinion that petitioner should be proceeded with for perjury as per Section 344(1) Cr.P.C. Admittedly there is no prior statement of the petitioner on oath relating to the facts in C.C. No. 39 of 2007, except his oral evidence as P.W-1 in that Court during trial. Ex.P-1 report therein was not given by the petitioner on oath.