STATE Vs. BHUBANESWAR NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 30.01.1970 at 7.00 p. m. non -duty paid Ganja and Bhang were recovered from the shop of Laxmidhar Sahu in the College Square at Cuttack near the Ravenshaw College. The said Ganja and Bhang were seized and the said Laxmidhar was prosecuted for an offence under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act in the Criminal Case No. 2(a) C.C. 54 of 1970 in the Court of the S.D.M. Cuttack. The opposite party, an Advocate of the Cuttack Bar, was examined as P.W. 3 in that case, and he deposed about the seizure of the contraband Ganja and Bhang in his presence. The accused in the aforesaid case was convicted under Section 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and in appeal his conviction was upheld. Against the said conviction the accused preferred Criminal Revision No. 726 of 1972 which came up before Justice Panda for disposal. Justice Panda, while confirming the conviction of the accused directed issue of notice on the opposite party in this case to show cause as to why a criminal prosecution would not be launched against the opposite party "for abetting fabrication of false evidence under Section 192 or giving false evidence under Section 191 punishable under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. The relevant observations of Panda, J. are extracted below:

(2.) IT is well settled that prosecution for perjury is to be sanctioned only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. In this connection the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 7 of Chajoo Ram's case : A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1367, should profitable be quoted below:

(3.) THE deposition in question of the opposite party is quoted below in extenso: