LAWS(MPH)-2002-2-61

KAMALVASINI AGARWAL Vs. R D AGARWAL

Decided On February 08, 2002
KAMALVASINI AGARWAL Appellant
V/S
R.D.AGARWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code') against the order dated 19-12-2000 in M.J.C. No. 37 of 1996 of the 9th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur by which her application under Section 340 of the Code for prosecuting R.D. Agrawal, an Officer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for perjury punishable under Section 193, I.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) Plaintiff Kamalvasini Agrawal had instituted Civil Suit No. 150-A of 1995 for eviction of defendant-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 on the ground that the suit accommodation was bona fide required by her for carrying on her own business. That suit was decreed on 22-1-1996. During the pendency of that suit R. D. Agrawal, an Officer of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, was examined as a witness on behalf of the defendant. He deposed before the Court that : "There is a plot measuring 7000 sq. ft. behind the suit accommodation on which the construction can be carried out". According to the plaintiff this was a false statement made by non-applicant R. D. Agrawal (D.W. 2) as there was no such plot behind the suit accommodation. In his deposition dated 1-7-1966 it is shown that there is a vacant plot of land behind the suit accommodation. The area of that plot was 100 x 55 feet.

(3.) The trial Court in a well considered order keeping in view the relevant principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in several decisions held : "It is not expedient in the interest of justice" to prosecute R. D. Agrawal for the offence of perjury. The trial Court was of the opinion that he has not intentionally given any false evidence and prima facie he has not committed any perjury. It was also observed that the Officer of the Corporation was not going to have any advantage in making the said statement and the explanation given by him in his evidence was quite satisfactory.