AMOLAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the petitioner Amolak and raises an interesting question relating to the interpretation of the newly enacted Section 479-A of the Code o? Criminal Procedure,

(2.) The facts, out of which this revision arises, may be very shortly stated.

(3.) In Criminal case No. 21 of 1957 Harisingh and four others were tried for offences under Sections 302 and 302/149 I. P. C. and certain other sections for causing the death of one Hari Ram and grievous injuries to his son Mangla. By his judgment dated the 26th of August 1958, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, acquitted the accused, having come to the finding that whatever injuries were caused to the deceased and his son, were so caused by the two accused Hari Singh and Madho in the exercise of their right of private defence of person, The petitioner Amolak was one of the three eyewitness in that case. On the 5th of December, 1958, an application was moved on behalf of the State that the said Amolak had intentionally given false evidence and had thereby committed the offence of perjury and therefore the court be pleased to file a complaint against him under Section 195 Cr. P. C. in the court of the magistrate concerned. This application was made under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A notice was given to the petitioner to show cause why a complaint be not made against him whereupon an objection was raised on his behalf that the aforesaid application was incompetent by virtue of the provisions of Section 479A and, therefore, it should be dismissed. The argument was that the learned Judge must have recorded a finding to the effect that the petitioner had given false evidence at the time of the delivery of the judgment as required by Section 479A, and, that inasmuch as he had failed to do so, no complaint could thereafter be filed relying on Section 476, as the case of the petitioner was fully covered by the provisions of Section 479A of the Code. The learned Judge rejected this argument by merely saying that in his opinion the complaint could be made even later, and there was no statutory bar to do so.