AB GANI BHAT Vs. B K KOUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROSECUTION of the respondent, Principal Islamia College Srinagar and his counsel is sought by the petitioner on two fold grounds, one that the averments made in the statement of facts filed in opposition to the contempt petition 26/03 are false, the other that his (petitionerâ„¢s) signature acknowledging the statement of facts has been forged. The alleged falsity of the statement of facts filed in the contempt petition needs to be appreciated in the light of the fact that while deciding the contempt petition on 26 -08 -2004, the statement of facts was taken into consideration in its entirety by the court and the proceedings culminated in a direction requiring the respondents to deposit Rs. 8,34,999.00 to be released in favour of the petitioner yet petitioner had registered grouse against the writ courtâ„¢s judgment before the Division Bench but of no avail, resultantly, the judgment of the Division Bench has attained finality. As a corollary the petitioner cannot re -agitate the issue, for, law is settled that no man can be vexed twice over a cause settled for good.

(2.) THIS brings me to the endeavor of the petitioner to bring the Principal and his counsel

(3.) A plain reading of the provision envisages essentially an exception to the bar against prosecution created by section 195 Cr. P.C. empowering the Court to order prosecution of a person on complaint for any offence referred to in section 195 Cr. P.C sub section (1) clause (b) or (c), appearing to have been committed in. or in relation to a proceeding in a Court defined in the section 476 Cr. P.C itself. Regard being had to the mandate of the section 476 Cr. P.C, it emerges that the power has to be exercised with great care and caution which makes it manifest that the exercise of power presupposes framing of an opinion to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an inquiry, obviously adherence to the expression expedient in the interest of justice  is sine qua non. That being so, an obligation is cast upon the aggrieved person to satisfy the Court that the person sought to be proceeded against had a criminal intention in bringing about a document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding. It goes without saying that in absence of prima facie material satisfying the Court about the veracity of the material pressed into service besides bona fides of the accusation, the Court will be justified in its refusal to exercise the power. In taking such a view I am fortified by the judicial pronouncement handed down by the apex court in case Chajoo Ram versus Radhey Shyam and another reported in 1367 at (sic) AIR 1971 SC 1371 which may be noticed: 7. The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by the Courts only in those cases where perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No doubt giving of false of evidence and filing false affidavits is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the Court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge. 