HARI SHANKAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the learned Munsiff-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara dated August 13, 1986 by which he has acquitted the accused-non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 under Sections 147 & 323, I.P.C. and ordered to initiate proceedings against Satya Narain P.W.1 and Han Shankar Advocate P.W. 8 under Section 344, Cr. P.C. for punishing them under Section 193, I.P.C. The facts giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) The petitioner Han Shankar Sharma lodged report Ex. P/7 in the police station, Banera (Bhilwara) on 31.03.1977 under Sections 147 & 323, I.P.C. against the non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 that on March 29, 1977 at about 8 P.M. the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly to cause injury to him and inflicted injuries. After necessary investigation, the challan under Sections 147 & 323, I.P.C. was filed against the accused Ram Niwas, Ganesh, Sausar Bai and Pyari Bai (nonpetitioners No. 2 to 5) and Daulat Ram who died during the trial. After recording the evidence, examining the accused persons and hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate passed the said judgment. In compliance thereof, notices were issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be convicted and sentenced under Section 193, I.P.C.

(3.) At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not press for setting aside the order of acquittal of the accused non-petitioners No. 2 to 5 and he challenges the portion of the order by which the learned Magistrate has ordered for the initiation of the proceedings under Section 344, Cr. P.C. read with Section 193, I.P.C. only. He contend that specific portions of the statements found to be false or incorrect are not mentioned either in the judgment dated August 13, 1986 or in the notices issued under Section 344, Cr. P.C. He further contends that simply on the basis of statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. and the report Ex. P17 it could not be said that statements given on oath before the trial Court were false as the former were not part of the judicial proceedings and on this ground alone the proceedings launched under Section 344, Cr. P.C. deserve to be quashed. He relies upon Badullah v. State. He lastly contends that under the facts and circumstances of the case it is neither expedient nor necessary in the interest of justice to allow to continue proceedings under Section 344, Cr. P.C. after a decade of the statements. He relies upon Chhajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & another, Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain & another and Dr. S.P. Kohli v.