RAM SINGH Vs. JAGDISH SINGH TANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed an application under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short the Code) on 23.1.1986 with a request to the Court to launch prosecution against three persons including the petitioner as they had perjured themselves in an earlier civil litigation pending between the parties. The Court without going into the facts or merits of the prayer made, issued a notice to those persons including the petitioner on the same day, i.e. 23.1.1976. The petitioner impugns this order copy of which is Annexure p.2 on the records of this case.

(2.) The primary submission of Me. Ashok Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per the requirement of sub-section (1) of section 340 of the Code the Court must prior to the issuance of the notice to the accused person satisfy itself. (i) whether an offence of the kind contemplated under the section appears to have been committed and (ii) whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that it should further be enquired into. In the absenceT of such a satisfaction, according to the learned counsel, there is no justification with .the Court to issue a notice or summons to the persons against whom the application has been filed.

(3.) In support of this proposition he squarely relies on a judgment of this Court in (B.S. Sandhu v. Rajinder Singh1).