NALLURI NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. KANIGALPULA KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .It is the scope and ambit of section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, that fall for determination in this Civil Revision Petition. The problem to be solved here arises in the following circumstances. The respondent obtained a decree against the petitioner in S.C. Suit No. 95 of 1950 on the file of the Subordinate Judged Court, Guntur, and transferred it to Kondru Nuchayya for consideration. The petitioner filed E.A. No. 471 of 1953 to record full satisfaction of the decree alleging that he paid the sum of Rs. 1,700 to the decree-holder on 21st June, 1953, in full satisfaction of the decree and the latter passed a receipt in token of having received that sum. The respondent opposed it pleading that the petitioner had not paid him any money and that he had not given any receipt evidencing this payment. After an elaborate enquiry into the matter, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition to record full satisfaction holding that the receipt alleged to have been passed by the respondent in his favour was a forged one.

(2.) The petitioner carried an appeal against that decision to the District Court but it was dismissed and the finding of the trial Court was affirmed. Subsequently, the respondent presented a petition before the Subordinate Judge's Court under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, to make a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 465, Indian Penal Code. This petition was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent was debarred from making the petition at that stage by reason of section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, which required that the Court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order should make a complaint in writing in regard thereto. This objection was overruled by the trial Court in the view that section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, did not abrogate the provisions of section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, and it directed a complaint to be filed against the petitioner for an offence under section 465, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was unsuccessful. The District Judge expressed the opinion that section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, was only applicable when a witness was sought to be prosecuted for an offence of perjury and it had no application when the offence under section 465, Indian Penal Code, had been made out against a party. It is this conclusion of the District Judge that is assailed before us in this Revision Petition. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that when an offence is committed by any person who appears as a witness in a judicial proceeding, section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, is attracted and if no action is taken at the time of delivery of judgment or order,, the party or one of the parties is precluded from making any complaint under that section. The foundation for this argument is the judgment of a single Judge of the Mysore High Court in Narajappa v. Chikkaramiah, (1958) M.LJ. (Crl.) 491.