JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were posted as patwaris. Respondent no.3 Karnail Singh gave a complaint against them that they had demanded bribe for sanctioning mutation in his favour. An enquiry was ordered to be held by the Deputy Commissioner. An enquiry was held by Naranjan Singh, District Revenue Officer, who held that allegation of Karnail Singh respondent No.3 that the petitioners had demanded bribe was false. Naranjan Singh filed a complaint under section 182 IPC against Karnail Singh. That complaint was dismissed and Karnail Singh was discharged vide judgment dated 27.3.1995. It was held that since compromise was reached between Karnail Singh and the petitioners, Karnail Singh did not consider it necessary to prove the demand of bribe and therefore, it could not be held that complaint of Karnail Singh was false.

(2.) In view of the above, Karnail Singh filed a petition under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking prosecution of the petitioners for perjury by submitting that filing of complaint under section 182 IPC against Karnail Singh was uncalled for and Naranjan Singh, District Revenue Officer, wrongly proceeded against Karnail Singh. The trial court accepted this application mainly with the following findings:-

(3.) On appeals filed by the petitioners and Naranjan Singh, the appellate court set aside the order of the trial court qua Naranjan Singh holding as under:-