KEDAR NATH JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGEMENT Facts material for this revision are that M/s Lakhuram Chironjilal applied for execution of a decree against Ramcharan (Execution Case No. 90 of 1968). Four houses were attached in village Gaswani, Kedarnath filed an objection petition under O.21, R. 58. Civil Procedure Code (Misc. Civil Case No. 22 of 1968). An enquiry was made By order dated October 13, 1969, the learned Civil Judge, Sabalgarh, dismissed the objection petition. While dismissing the objection petition, he recorded a finding that the sale deeds produced by the objector were fabricated and that false evidence had been given in the Court. He also found that to eradicate the evil of perjury and in the interest of justice it was necessary that Kedarnath be prosecuted under Ss.193, 467 and 471 of the Penal Code. Having recorded that finding, the trial Court directed that a complaint be made against Kedarnath and others. In his order, the trial Judge further said:

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the requirement under S.479 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989, which applied to this case (as the order of the trial Court was passed on December 15, 1967), for giving an opportunity of being heard is mandatory, and in this case no opportunity was given. The learned Civil Judge further studiously observed that no opportunity would be given to Kedarnath.

(3.) IN Abdul Shakoor v. State of Rajasthan, (1965 (2) Cril LJ 675 (Raj)) (supra) a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court was cited. That case in In re Jivvaji Uthanna, AIR 1964 Andh Pra 368 : (1964 (2) Cri LJ 133). Another case Rukmani Bai v. Govindaswamy Chetty, 1963 (2) Cr LJ 355 (Mad), a decision of Madras High Court was also cited. In the Andhra Pradesh case, the Madras case was relied on (see paragraph 6). The learned Judge of the Rajasthan High Court disagreed with the view taken by the Madras and Andhra Pradesh High Courts in the above cited case.