BHUBAN CHANDRA PRODHAN Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal must be dismissed. What has happened in this case is this : A trial was going on before the learned Sessions Judge in which the accused had been charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 395, I.P.C. It appears that certain other people had been committed to take their trial in the Sessions Court in respect of an offence punishable under Section 412, I.P.C. There was an order made in the last-mentioned case that the trial of the accused under Section 412, I.P.C., should be taken up after the trial of the case under Section 395 had been concluded. It appears further that one of the accused in the case under Section 412, I.P.C., was the tadbidkar of the accused in the case under Section 395. The appellant before us is the President, Panchayat of the Union, and it is said that he noticed on one particular day that the foreman of the jury, who were trying the accused under Section 395, I.P.C., was talking to the accused in the case under Section 412, who was the tadbidkar of the accused in the case under Section 395. He thereupon brought the matter to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge thereupon determined to hold au enquiry into the matter, and as preliminary thereto, the appellant before us was required to file an affidavit stating what he had observed1 in respect of the matter to which he had drawn the attention of the learned Sessions Judge. The appellant filed an affidavit which was sworn to before the sheristadar of the Court. The affidavit was brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge on the 26 July 1926, when he, after perusing the affidavit, called upon the appellant before us to step into the witness-box and to state orally on oath the circumstances referred to in his affidavit. The appellant thereupon, gave evidence before the learned Sessions Judge. It subsequently transpired that the sheristadar had no power to have affidavits sworn before him. It followed thereupon that no action could be taken on the affidavit referred to above, but the learned Sessions Judge-having come to the conclusion in the course of the enquiry which he held, wherein the appellant before us gave evidence, that the information which had been supplied by the appellant was false, directed that complaint should be lodged against the appellant for having: committed an offence punishable under Section 193, I.P.C. He accordingly drew up proceedings under Section 476, Criminal P.C., in respect of the statement made by the appellant during his examination on the 26 July 1926 at the enquiry referred to above.

(3.) It is argued before us that the proceeings initiated by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 476, Criminal P.C., are incompetent, because there is no provision whatsoever in the Criminal P. C., which authorized the learned Judge to hold an enquiry, such as he did in the midst of the trial of the accused under Section 395, I.P.C., into the circumstances to which attention had bean drawn by the appellant and that, therefore, the enquiry which he held was not and should not be treated as a judicial enquiry, and no oath could be administered to the appellant on the 26 July 1926. It is further argued that there is nothing in the Criminal P. C. which prevented or could prevent the foreman of the jury from talking to the tadbidkar of the accused in the case under Section 395.