LAWS(PVC)-1941-6-3

SITA RAM Vs. BRIJ BEHARI

Decided On June 23, 1941
SITA RAM Appellant
V/S
BRIJ BEHARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application in revision is directed, against an order of the Additional Sessions Judge of Patna, directing the petitioner, Babu Sita Ram, to be prosecuted for perjury.

(2.) Babu Sita Ram is, and has since 1938 been, the vice-chairman of the. Dinapore Nazamat Municipality. In that year, he was returned at a municipal election as a result of which Rai Sahib Girjanand, who had been chairman since 1930, had to vacate office and was replaced by another gentleman, BabuRajrup Singh, Babu Rajrup Singh and Babu Sita Ram discovered that the electoral rolls had not been properly prepared and made certain recommendations to the Provincial Government in, consequence of which the head clerk, Babu Brij Behari, was eventually prosecuted. Babu Sita Ram gave evidence againsthim, and, on 25 April 1940, was asked, in cross-examination, about a recommendation that another Municipal Commissioner, Babu Rabindra Nath Nandy, who is a pleader, should be employed to assist the Public Prosecutor at the trial of Babu Brij Behari. It was suggested to Babu Sita Ram that the letter, containing the recommendation, had actually been written by him, and this he denied. On 13th May 1940, he was cross-examined further, and was then shown the letter in question, and, on seeing it, Babu Sita Ram at once admitted having written it. It is in respect of these conflicting statements that Babu Sita Ram has been ordered to be prosecuted.

(3.) Mr. Nageshwar Prasad, who appears for the petitioner, has said that, so far as appears from the record, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in calling on Babu Sita Ram to show cause why he should not be prosecuted acted suo motu, and that, in consequence, the opposite party, Babu Brij Behari, had no right of appeal against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate declining to take action. Mr. Lalbehari Lal for the respondent has said that, although no written application was made to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, an oral application was made immediately after the judgment was delivered. There is no affidavit on this point, and, if such an application had in fact been made, one would expect the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to have said something at least about it in the order, which he recorded in the order sheet.