STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. KAMTA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY a revision petition accused one Beharilal had challenged the correctness of his conviction under Rule 81 read with Section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and by my order dated 21-12-1962 I had held that the conviction of the accused was unwarranted and unsustainable. Accordingly it was set aside and the accused was acquitted. But while coming to the said conclusion I had expressly held that Kamta prasad (P. W. 3) and Mahesh Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police (P. W. 2) not only had given false evidence in Court but had also fabricated false evidence for purposes of prosecution of the accused, and that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence, it was expedient that these two witnesses should be prosecuted. Accordingly a notice as retired by Section 479-A (5), Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), was issued calling upon them to show cause why they should not be prosecuted. Hence these proceedings.

(2.) WITNESS Mahesh Prasad appeared before me through his counsel Shri K. N. Roy but witness Kampta Prasad has not cared to put in any representation and has not also cared to appear personally.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of Mahesh Prasad that since this Court was exercising powers only that of a revisional Court, it had no jurisdiction to take any action under Section 479-A of the Code inasmuch as powers there under could only be exercised by an appellate Court. My attention was drawn to section 520 of the Code wherein a Court of revision is expressly referred to, and it was argued that if the Legislature intended that a Court of revision may also exercise powers under Section 479-A of the Code it would have expressly mentioned that Court also in addition to the appellate Court in Clauses (4) and (5), more particularly in clause (5) of Section 479-A which applies to the instant proceedings. The case of ram Abhilakh v. State, AIR 1961 All 544 was relied upon.