GOKULA CHANDRA ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , who was the informant in Khandapada P.S. Case No. 112/92 which was registered as G.R. Case No. 218/92 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khadapada and after commitment tried and disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nayagarh was alleged by the trial Court to have committed an offence under Section 181, I.P.C. by giving false statement on oath i.e. his evidence during the trial of Sessions Case No, 48/281 of 1993. Learned Additional Sessions Judge in accordance with provision under Section 195, Cr. P.C., lodged the complaint in the Court of J.M.F.C., Khandapada stating therein that during the trial of the case the Petitioner appearing as p. w. No. 1 made false statement on oath and therefore he be prosecuted and punished for the alleged offence. Upon receipt of that complaint, learned J.M. F.C. registered it as 2 (c) C.C. No. 1 of 1996, took cognizance of the offence under Section 181, I.P.C. and issued process against the Petitioner. Thus, the Petitioner has filed this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., with the prayer to quash the order of the cognizance dated 11 -7 -1996.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the points raised by the Petitioner a brief sketch of the background facts is indicated for better appreciations of the dispute and the contentions raised.

(3.) THE facts and ratio in the case of. Dr. Pal Chaudhry (supra) and Uchhabananda Samantaray (supra) were relating to cases involving by the procedure provided under Section 497A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, A bare perusal of the tabular chart and the statutory provision in the respective Chapter of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( i.e., the new Code) it is seen that Section 479A as it was in the Old Code is no more in existence in the new Code. The substantially modified provision can be found in Section 344, Cr. P.C. of the new Code. Section 344 as it stands provides for a summary trial and disposal of cases of perjury after fulfilling the requirements in the manner argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner following the ratio in the cited decisions. In this case, learned Additional Sessions Judge did not proceed with the matter in accordance with Section 344. Cr. P.C. and he was not bound to follow the same, hence literally the ratio in the aforesaid cases are not applicable.