MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition, against an order of the Magistrate, First Class, Theog, framing a charge, under Section 193, I.P.C. against the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner had appeared as a witness, in execution proceedings, pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Theog, against Rama Nand judgment debtor. Rama Nand had put in an application, under Sections 476/479A, Criminal P.C. against the petitioner, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Theog. praying that a complaint, under Section 193, I.P.C. may be filed against the petitioner as he had intentionally given false evidence in the execution proceedings. The Subordinate Judge, after enquiry, dismissed the application of Rama Nand, holding that it was not expedient in the interests of justice that a complaint should be filed against the petitioner. Rama Nand went up in appeal to the learned District Judge, against the order of the Subordinate Judge, dismissing his application for lodging a complaint. The appeal was accepted by the learned District Judge. He ordered the Subordinate Judge, Theog, to lodge a complaint, against the petitioner, for intentionally giving false evidence. In pursuance of this order, the Subordinate Judge, Theog filed a complaint, under Section 193, I.P.C. against the petitioner in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Theog. After recording evidence, the Magistrate, First Class, framed a charge, under Section 193, I.P.C. against the petitioner.

(3.) THERE was a conflict of judicial opinion, on the point, whether Section 479A Criminal P.C. which was inserted by the Amending Act 26 of 1955, gives only additional powers to the Court to deal with offences of intentionally giving false evidence or for intentionally fabricating false evidence and does not exclude the applicability of Sections 476 to 479 Criminal P.C. for the prosecution, in connection with those offences or whether Section 479A overrides the provisions of Sections 476 to 479 Criminal P.C. so far as the prosecution for the aforesaid offences is concerned. One view was that Section 478A confers only additional powers on the Court and does not exclude the applicability of Sections 476 to 479 Criminal P.C. The other view was that Section 479A overrides the provisions of Sections 476 to 478 Criminal P.C. and excludes their applicability for the prosecution of the offences of intentionally giving false evidence or intentionally fabricating false evidence. The conflict has now been set at rest by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shabir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra