PYDI LAKSHMANNA Vs. DUPPALA KRISHNAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions arise out of the same matter and they will be disposed of by this common order. In P. R. C. No. 2/67 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Srikakulam, the petitioners were examined as witnesses to speak to the murder of one Akkayya. Previous to this proceeding in the course of the investigation, the statements of both these witnesses were recorded by the Magistrate under S. 164, Cr. P.C. When they gave evidence before the learned Munsif Magistrate, Srikakulam, contrary to what they had stated in their statements under S. 164, he made an observation in the final order passed by him that they had intentionally given false evidence either before him or before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasannapet, who had recorded the statements of these witnesses under S. 164, Cr. P.C. and for the eradication of the evil of perjury, and in the interests of justice it was expedient that both these witnesses would be prosecuted for perjury. Therefore an explanation was called for by the learned Magistrate from these witnesses. Both of them stated in their replies that owing to the pressure and influence of the police they were obliged to subscribe to the prosecution story at the time when their statements were recorded by the Magistrate at Narasannapet but the real position was that they did not witness the occurrence. In the course of the evidence which was recorded by the learned Magistrate, Srikakulam, both these witnesses had stated categorically that they were kept in the police station for three days and thereafter they were produced before the Magistrate at Narasannapet. This supports the explanation given by them with respect to their statements recorded under S. 164, Cr. P.C. that they were given under the pressure of the police. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended before me that it is for the Magistrate to give a finding before he proceeds to lodge a complaint as to which of the two contradictory statements given by the witness is false. He refers me to the wording of S. 479-A the relevant position of which is in the following terms:

(2.) Mr. Seetharama Reddy also lays stress on the observation of the Supreme Court that even when the Sessions Judge is unable to say which of the two contradictory statements is false or even where he is of the opinion that the statement before the committing Magistrate is false, it is for him alone to act under S. 479-A (1), and submits that in the light of the observations of the Supreme Court, It is not open to this Court to construe the wording of the section in any other manner. With due respect to the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, my own view is that the words used in the section to which a reference has been made earlier, were not expressly brought to the notice of the Supreme Court not it appears that the argument addressed before it was the same as has been addressed before me. The counsel for the respondent had only contended before their Lordships of the Supreme Court that in the absence of any finding as to which of the two contradictory statements is false, the case could only come under S. 476, Cr. P.C. In these circumstances, I do not think that it would be wrong for me to hold that the complaint of the Court, if it is submitted under S.479-A must necessarily mention which of the two contradictory statements is false. These words have been used by the Legislature obviously to guard the interests of the accused so that he may not be prejudiced in his defence. It may be noted that these words were not used either in S. 476 or S. 479 Cr. P.C. and when they are used in S. 479-A, Cr. P.C. it only means that the Legislature has introduced those words with a purpose.

(3.) The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his statement recorded under S. 164, Cr. P.C. is not evidence recorded in a judicial proceeding. Section 164, Cr. P.C. falls under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure which relates to the powers of the Police to investigate the cases reported to them but in AIR 1959 Andh Pra 250 to which a reference has been made earlier, it was observed by the learned Judge that an investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a state of a judicial proceeding and a person who makes on oath statements which he knew to be false before a Magistrate conducting the investigation, gives false evidence and commits an offence under S. 193, I. P. C. This observation was made in the light of the decision in Tevan v. Emperor, (1906) ILR 29 Mad 89 ; (3 Cri LJ 370). Any way, this is a question which does not require any further consideration because I am inclined to allow these petitions on the former point that the Magistrate had failed to give a finding as to which of the two contradictory statements is false.