DHANSINGH KHADAKSINGH RAGHUBANSI Vs. RAMSARAN DARIYAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference by a Single Judge the question raised is as to the applicability of Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a witness who is stated to have given false evidence in a judicial proceeding and against whom no proceedings under Section 479-A of the Code were taken.

(2.) The matter arises thus. The opponent Ramsaran while giving evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs in a suit denied his relationship with two of the plaintiffs. After the disposal of the suit the petitioner Dhansingh, who was one of the defendants, presented an application under Section 476 for a complaint being filed against Ramsaran in respect of an offence under Section 193 I. P. C. alleging that the statements made by Ramsaran denying his relationship with the plaintiffs were false. No action of any kind under Section 479-A had been taken against Ramsaran at the time of the delivery of the judgment in the suit. The trial Judge rejected the application as in his opinion it was not expedient in the interests of justice to prosecute Ramsaran. Dhansingh then preferred an appeal before the 1st Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, who rejected the appeal holding on the authority of Mannalal Sardarmal v. Ramkishan Jodhraj, 1959 MPLJ 579 : (AIR 1959 MP 264) that no prosecution of a witness for giving false evidence in judicial proceedings could be started under Section 476 of the Code after the disposal of the suit. Dhansingh then preferred this revision petition. When the matter first came up for hearing before a Single Judge, it was urged that the view taken in AIR 1959 MP 264 (supra) required reconsideration and that the Allahabad High Court had taken a Contrary view in Durga Prasad v. State of U. P., AIR 1959 AH 744. In view of the importance of the question which is of frequent occurrence the learned Single Judge has referred it to this Bench for decision. The question at issue is whether prosecution against Ramsaran who is alleged to have given false evidence can be started now under Section 476 when no action under Section 479-A was taken against him at the time of the delivery of the judgment in the suit. In other words, it is whether prosecution of a witness who has given false evidence in a judicial proceeding can be initiated only under Section 479-A. Section 476 prescribes the procedure to be followed in the case of complaints by Courts in respect of an offence under Section 193 I. P. C., and other offences referred to in Clauses (b) and (e) of Section 195 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under that provision, a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court can proceed suo motu or on an application by anyone, if it thinks it expedient in the interests of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195 (1), Clause (b) or Clause (c), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court. This covers the offence by a witness of giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding or fabricating false evidence in regard to such proceeding (Section 193 I. P. C.). Section 479-A was inserted in the Code by the Amendment Act No. XXVI of 1955. The material provisions here are the substantive part of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (6) which run as follows:-

(3.) On comparison it will be seen that Sections 476 and 479-A differ both in the content of their scope and in the procedure they prescribe. Leaving aside the procedural differences on which nothing turns here, the main distinction between the two sections is that whereas Section 476 is concerned with all the offences referred to in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 195 (1) when committed by any person in or in relation to a proceeding in the Court, Section 479-A is confined to the launching of the prosecution against a witness who has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding. Section 479-A thus prescribes a special procedure in regard to a witness who has given false evidence in a judicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in such proceedings. The object of the provision is, as the expression "for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice" itself shows is to deal with the evil of perjury in a summary way.