COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent herein is one of the witnesses (PW-9) in Case No. 8 of 2005, having arisen out of FIR No. 35/05 registered in Police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur on 8.1.2005 under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against Khem Singh @ Khemu and Roshan Lal. Both accused though were acquitted of the charge by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 2009, preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal. This Court has also affirmed the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 12.08.2016. However, in the opinion of this Court, the respondent has deposed falsely while in the witness box as PW-9 for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, prima-facie he was found to have committed an offence within the meaning of Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. It was, however, deemed appropriate to make a complaint in writing to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the matter in terms of the provisions contained under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the respondent after holding preliminary inquiry and affording an opportunity of being heard to him. We have dealt with this part of the matter in para 21 of the judgment as under:

(2.) Consequent upon the above directions, show cause notice was issued against the respondent.

(3.) The explanation so forthcoming is neither plausible nor reasonable for the reason that normally a man of ordinary prudence is not expected to act at the behest of anyone else, more particularly, a police Constable, that too, in a criminal case of high stakes qua the accused. As a matter of fact, we have considered and discussed this part of the matter in detail in the main judgment and formed an opinion that a person like the respondent cannot be expected to sign the documents in connection with search and seizure of contraband i.e. charas allegedly recovered from the accused persons.