MUNIAMMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another case coming from the district of Chittoor in which persons who ought to be prosecuted for perjury, cannot be prosecuted because of the failure on the part of the Court concerned to follow the procedure prescribed by Section 479A. Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) In this case the witnesses had intentionally given conflicting statements on oath, and were liable to be prosecuted for perjury. But the Magistrate, who had held the preliminary enquiry and discharged the accused involved therein, did not record a finding at the time of delivering the final order disposing of the committal proceedings, to the effect that the said witnesses had intentionally given false evidence in a stage of the judicial proceeding, and that it was expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute them for perjury. Such a finding should have been recorded at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order under the express provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, and after recording such a finding and giving the witnesses an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate should have made a complaint in writing setting forth the evidence which in his opinion was false and then forwarded the complaint to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. It is regrettable that the provisions of this section are honored more in the breach than in the observance and perjurers go unpunished. The object of the Legislature in enacting the new Section 479-A is to eradicate the evils of perjury. The Courts below should take note of this and try to observe the provisions of the section faithfully.

(3.) Besides in this case the finding was recorded, not by the Magistrate who had conducted the preliminary enquiry, as should have been done, but by another Magistrate some considerable time after the close of the preliminary enquiry. This procedure also is not one warranted by Section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code.