The provisions of S. 479-A, Cr. P. C. are not co-extensive with those of Ss. 476 to 479, and that S. 479-A provides an alternative procedure for dealing with offences of intentionally giving false evidence or intentionally fabricating false evidence in judicial proceedings.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 479-A - PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN CASES OF FALSE EVIDENCE - APPLICABILITY - OFFENCE OF GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDING - JURISDICTION OF COURT TO MAKE COMPLAINT - CONDITIONS AND PROCEDURE - DISTINCTION BETWEEN SECTIONS 476 AND 479-A.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a witness in a murder trial, gave contradictory statements before the committing magistrate and the trial court. The Additional Sessions Judge, who tried the case, directed the Registrar to take necessary steps for prosecution of the appellant for the offence of perjury. A complaint was filed under his signature before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay. The Chief Presidency Magistrate discharged the appellant, holding that the provisions of S. 479-A, Cr. P. C. had not been complied with by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court set aside the discharge order and remanded the case for trial.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of S. 479-A, Cr. P. C. are not co-extensive with those of Ss. 476 to 479, and that S. 479-A provides an alternative procedure for dealing with offences of intentionally giving false evidence or intentionally fabricating false evidence in judicial proceedings. The Court further held that the jurisdiction of the Court to make a complaint against a person arises only from the fact that that person has given false evidence or fabricated false evidence at any stage of the proceeding disposed of by it, and that the conditions required to be fulfilled by the Court and the procedure to be followed by it for the purpose of exercising its jurisdiction and making a complaint are not to be equated with the conditions which give the court jurisdiction to make a complaint.
Issues: Whether the provisions of S. 479-A, Cr. P. C. are co-extensive with those of Ss. 476 to 479, and whether S. 479-A provides an alternative procedure for dealing with offences of intentionally giving false evidence or intentionally fabricating false evidence in judicial proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of S. 479-A, Cr. P. C. are not co-extensive with those of Ss. 476 to 479, and that S. 479-A provides an alternative procedure for dealing with offences of intentionally giving false evidence or intentionally fabricating false evidence in judicial proceedings. The Court further held that the jurisdiction of the Court to make a complaint against a person arises only from the fact that that person has given false evidence or fabricated false evidence at any stage of the proceeding disposed of by it, and that the conditions required to be fulfilled by the Court and the procedure to be followed by it for the purpose of exercising its jurisdiction and making a complaint are not to be equated with the conditions which give the court jurisdiction to make a complaint.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and upheld the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate discharging the appellant.

Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Bombay High Court the question which arises for consideration is whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, could not take cognizance of a complaint against the appellant for an offence under S. 193, Indian Penal Code, because the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, who filed that complaint had failed to follow the procedure laid down in S. 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The appellant was a witness for the prosecution at the trial of one Rafique Ahmad before the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for offences of murder and abetment of murder, along with two other persons. When the appellant had been examined as a witness before the committing magistrate he deposed that in his presence Rafique Ahmed had stabbed the deceased Chand while he was running away. When, however, he was examined at the trial before the Court of Sessions three months later the appellant stated that while he was standing on the threshold of his house he saw Rafique Ahmed and his two associates coming from the direction of the Muhammaden burial ground. According to him one of them had a dagger while the others had only sticks with them. He, however, did not see anything more because, as his children were frightened, he closed the door and remained inside. He disclaimed knowledge of what happened subsequently and in cross-examination stated that it was not true that he actually saw Rafique Ahmed stabbing the deceased.

3. In his charge to the jury the learned Additional Sessions Judge who tried the case has brought out the fact that the appellant had made two widely divergent statements in regard to a certain part of the incident. The jury, after considering the entire evidence, returned a verdict of not guilty against Rafique Ahmed in respect of the offence under S. 302, I. P. C. but found him guilty under S. 304, first part. It also found the other two accused persons guilty under S. 304, first part read with S. 109, I. P. C. After the trial was over the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that proceedings should be taken against the appellant for intentionally giving false evidence. He, therefore, recorded a separate order which runs thus:

"I direct that the Registrar, Sessions Court for Greater Bombay should take necessary steps for prosecution of witness Shabir Hussain Bholu for the offence of perjury in view of his deposition before the Committing Magistrate and his deposition in this Court, both of which are on oath but are at variance with each others."

4. In pursuance of this order a notice was issued against the appellant requiring him to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under S. 193, I. P. C. for making contradictory statements regarding the same incident. In pursuance of that notice the appellant appeared before the additional Sessions Judge and his counsel submitted that the contradictory statements were ascribable to the fact that the appellant was illiterate and that his mind was in a state of confusion. These contentions were rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge who made the notice absolute and ordered the complaint to be filed. Accordingly a complaint was filed under his signature before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay. The statements which were regarded by him as contradictory were also set out in that complaint.

5. At the trial of the appellant before the Chief Presidency Magistrate an objection was raised on his behalf that the provisions of S. 479-A, Code of Criminal Procedure had not been complied with by the Additional Sessions Judge and that consequently the Chief Presidency Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence. The objection was upheld by the Chief Presidency Magistrate and the appellant was ordered to be discharged. The State preferred an application for revision before the High Court which granted that application, set aside the discharge of the appellant and remanded the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document