STATE OF ORISSA Vs. JAGANNATH BARAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against an order of acquittal dated 6 -2 -1960 passed by Sri R.N. Dhal Samanta, Magistrate, First Class, Puri, in Case No. C(II) 129/60.

(2.) THE prosecution case may be stated as follows: Jagannath Baral, accused No. 1, filed a criminal case No. C(I)465 of 1958 against Kashinath Mohapatra and others under Sections 323/426, Indian Penal Code before the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Puri. The case was transferred to the Court of Sri A. K. Dasgupta, Sub -Deputy Magistrate, III Class, Puri (P.W. 6) who recorded the evidence of some of the witnesses including that of the present accused persons both of whom figured as prosecution witnesses in that case. Ultimately judgment (Ex. 3) in that criminal case was delivered by Shri P.C. Patnaik, Magistrate III Class, Puri, (P.W. 2) on 30 -9 -1959, acquitting the accused persons in that case. Thereafter on 22 -12 -1959, Kasinath Mohapatra (P.W. l), who was an accused, in the previous criminal case, filed a petition (Ex. 4) to start a proceeding under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting the present Respondents Jagannath Baral and Golakh Baral under Section 193, Indian Penal Code as they gave false evidence in the previous Criminal case by denying the suggestion that Dukhisyam is the brother of Golak. After necessary inquiry, Sri P.C. Patnaik, Magistrate, (P.W. 2) filed a complaint (Ex. 5) before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Puri on 22 -9 -1960. The case ultimately came up for hearing before Sri K.N. Dhal Samanta, Magistrate, First Class, Puri, who, though held that the accused persons did really make false statements in the previous criminal case, passed an order of acquittal as according to him the Trying Magistrate had enough materials to record a finding and to lodge a complaint under Section 479A(1), Code of Criminal Procedure and since he had failed to do so, a subsequent proceeding under Section 476, Criminal Procedure was not competent and no complaint could be instituted on the basis of such an inquiry. The learned Magistrate relied upon a number of decisions of different High Courts of India in coming to such a finding. It is against this order of acquittal the Government has filed the present appeal.

(3.) IT is a settled position of law that where in an enactment there are two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each other they should be so interpreted and should be so harmoniously construed so as to give effect to both, if possible. So both the sections shall be so construed as not to lead to any absurdity or to cause any practical inconvenience in their operation. The scope of Section 479A, however, appears to be so mew hat different from that of Section 476. Section 479A deals only with cases of intentionally giving or fabricating false evidence at any stage of a judicial proceeding as contemplated under Section 193, Indian Penal Code and does not deal with any other kind of offence whereas the scope of Section 476 is wider and covers various kinds of other offences in respect of which possibly no action can be taken under Section 4 79A. Under both the sections a Court is quite competent to take action suo motu without any application from any party, though under Section 476 a Court may take action on the application of a party. Under Section 479A however there is no provision for any action being taken on the application of a party. On the other hand it provides that when any Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence it may for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence record a finding to that effect at the time of delivery of the judgment or final order and file a complaint against such person. In other words, if a glaring case of perjury comes to the notice of the Court, the Court may record a finding to that effect and file a complaint. If on the other hand from the materials before him he is unable to come to such a finding, is he debarred under Section 479A(6), Code of Criminal Procedure from taking any subsequent action under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure? It cannot, however, be contended that Sub -section (6) of Section 479A completely excludes operation of Sections 476 to 479 and makes these sections redundant. In fact each of the two sections can operate in their own fields. In order to avoid any conflict, Section 476A(6) excludes the operation of Sections 476 to 479 only in respect of such cases where action may be taken under Section 479A.