PRAVEEN MALPANI Vs. M DCOSTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner boastful of his affluence and illustrious ancestry in case No. 487/90 initiated by him under section Criminal Procedure Code gave the following statement on oath on 9 -8 -1990 : .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(2.) THE petitioner applied to the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur for setting aside the ex parte judgment on the ground that the petitioner entrusted the summons of the appeal to his clerk Shri Promod Sharma who is looking after his cases pending in various courts and directed him to attend the date of hearing. Through mistake Shri Sharma noted the date of appearance as 6 -11 -1991 and when he conveyed this to petitioner's counsel, it was pointed out that there must be some mistake as the Court was to remain closed on that date due to Diwali holidays. The holidays were over, the Court did not function on 12 -11 -1991 due to sad demise of Shri Panna Lal Shrivastava, Advocate. Petitioner's counsel Shri Abhay Sapre inspected the case on 13 -11 -1991 and found that the case was fixed for passing of orders in the appeal. On 14 -11 -1991, Shri Sapre discovered that the date of petitioner's appearance in the appeal was 6 -9 -1991 and on that date the case proceeded ex parte. The impugned judgment was pronounced on 13 -11 -1991 and the petitioner made an application on 15 -11 -1991 for setting aside the ex parte order which is still pending. Though in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the prayer is for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case back to the District Judge for deciding the appeal on merits after by party hearing the said impugned judgment has been assailed on almost every conceivable ground detailed in paras 40 to 50 of the petition reproduction whereof appears unnecessary for a fair disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that the petitioner doggedly asserts that he had no intention of giving false evidence before the learned S.D.M. and that the question of making an enquiry against him in this behalf could not be decided till his civil suit No.....pending in the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur, is disposed of.

(3.) HE , therefore, deliberately avoided appearing before the Court and has now made this petition on false grounds. A petition under Section 482 is tenable only where the abuse of the process of the Court is writ large or intervention for securing ends of justice is warranted. None of these conditions exist in the case. In view of the clear documentary evidence that the petitioner has given false statement during proceeding under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code an enquiry in this behalf under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code is necessary in the ends of justice.