JAMNA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra whereby he affirmed the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Balotra dated 8-2-1980.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner was posted as C.A.S. at village Chitalwara and was incharge of Medical Hospital. The petitioner was called as witness in criminal case No. 200/72 styled as State v. Budhmal, and his statement was recorded on 24-6-1975, which was decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 10-9-1975, and it was observed that As the issuance of fake sick-certificates and the consequent perjury is very rampant these days, it is expedient in the interest of justice and for the purposes of the eradication of the evils of perjury, the witness Jamna Prasad Bora be given notice to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for the offence of perjury and the other offences like forging of documents and using them as genuine ones while knowing them to be false. A notice to show cause was given to the petitioner and in response thereto the petitioner had given his explanation. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence u/s. 193 I.P.C. Against this order, the petitioner preferred revision which was also dismissed. Hence this petition days, it is expedient in the interest of justice and for the purposes of the eradication of the evils of perjury, the witness Jamna Prasad Bora be given notice to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for the offence of perjury and the other offences like forging of documents and using them as genuine oneswhile knowing them to be false. A notice to show cause was given to the petitioner and in response thereto the petitioner had given his explanation. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence u/s. 193 I.P.C. Against this order, the petitioner preferred revision which was also dismissed. Hence this petition.

(3.) Mr. V.L. Thanvi, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the certificate is pretaining for petitioner for the treatment from 19-2-1972 to 24-2-72 and case is pending since 10-9-75 and the Courts have not considered the explanation and without recording a definite finding took cognizance against the petitioner. Mr. V.5. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. I have heard Mr. V.L. Thanvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.5. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.