1. Prosecution for perjury under Section 193, IPC — Complaint filed under Section 476, CrPC after trial conclusion — Dispute over applicability of Section 479-A, CrPC. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 148
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.
Kuppa Goundan and another, Appellants
Versus
M. S. P. Rajesh, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. Thiagarajan, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. Purshottam Trikumdas, Senior Advocate, (Mr. T. V. R. Tatachari, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
PURSHOTTAM TRIKAMDAS, R.THIAGARAJAN, T.V.R.TATACHARI
PURSHOTTAM TRIKAMDAS, R.THIAGARAJAN, T.V.R.TATACHARI
The bar under Section 479-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies only if the court could have acted under Section 479-A(1) at the time of judgment. If evidence of perjury emerges after the judgment, prosecution under Section 476 remains legally valid.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 476 and 479-A(1) and (6) - Indian Penal Code - Section 193 - Prosecution for perjury - Scope of the bar under Section 479-A(6) - The special procedure under Section 479-A is intended for the expeditious dealing with perjury and fabrication of false evidence by witnesses during judicial proceedings. A necessary condition for its application is that the Court must form an opinion regarding the falsity of the evidence at the time of delivering the judgment or final order. If no material is available to the Court at that time to form such an opinion, Section 479-A(1) cannot be invoked. (Para 5)
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 479-A(6) - Interpretation of the bar - The bar under Section 479-A(6), which prevents proceedings under Sections 476 to 479 if proceedings may be taken under Section 479-A, refers to the possibility of action based on the facts and circumstances of the particular case, not the legal character of the offence. If material proving perjury is produced after the judgment has been pronounced and such material was unavailable to the Court during the trial, the bar under Section 479-A(6) does not operate, and the Court may proceed under Section 476. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
Witnesses in a criminal trial testified that a specific individual was among the assailants and was armed with a weapon. After the trial concluded and the accused were acquitted, the individual filed a petition producing evidence, including board meeting minutes, demonstrating that they were in a different city at the time of the alleged occurrence. The trial court, satisfied that the witnesses had committed perjury, filed a complaint under the general procedure for offences affecting the administration of justice. The District Magistrate subsequently discharged the witnesses, holding that the complaint was unsustainable because the special procedure for perjury witnesses had not been followed. The High Court set aside this discharge.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that since the material proving the falsity of the evidence was produced only after the conclusion of the trial, the Magistrate could not have formed an opinion at the time of delivering the judgment. Consequently, the special procedure under Section 479-A was not applicable, and the bar contained in Section 479-A(6) did not apply to the facts of the case.
Issues: Whether the bar under Section 479-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prevents a court from initiating prosecution for perjury under Section 476 when the evidence of perjury is brought to the court's notice after the delivery of the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The bar under Section 479-A(6) applies only to cases where the trying court could have acted under Section 479-A(1) at the time of judgment. Where perjury is detected subsequently due to material produced after the trial which was previously unavailable, the prosecution under Section 476 is legally valid and not precluded by Section 479-A(6).
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the bar under Section 479-A(6), CrPC precludes prosecution under Section 476, CrPC when evidence of perjury is produced after the delivery of judgment. (Para 1 )
3. Section 479-A requires an opinion at the time of judgment; if material for perjury emerges later, the bar under Section 479-A(6) does not apply. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. The bar under Section 479-A(6), CrPC applies only if the court could have acted under Section 479-A(1) at the time of delivering judgment. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed; prosecution under Section 476, CrPC held legally valid. (Para 9 )
6. When does the bar under Section 479-A(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code apply to perjury prosecutions?
The bar applies only when the court could have acted under Section 479-A(1) at the time of delivering the judgment. It does not apply if the material proving perjury was unavailable to the court until after the judgment was pronounced. (Para 5 )
7. What is the primary condition for a court to initiate proceedings under Section 479-A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code?
The court must form an opinion that a witness intentionally gave false evidence or fabricated evidence at the time of delivering the judgment or final order disposing of the proceeding. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. How does Section 476 differ from Section 479-A in the context of perjury?
Section 476 provides the general procedure for prosecuting offences affecting the administration of justice, while Section 479-A is a special, more expeditious procedure for perjury by witnesses, specifically tied to the timing of the judgment. (Para 4 , 5 )
Judgement
RAMASWAMI, J. : The 2nd petitioner Kuppuswami lodged a complaint with Yercaud Police on October 12, 1963, alleging that the respondent, Mr. M. S. P. Rajesh and other persons had formed an unlawful assembly and committed offences of house trespass, mischief and causing hurt at 10 p.m. on October 11, 1963. The complaint was the subject-matter of investigation by the police who did not present a charge-sheet against respondent. M. S. P. Rajesh but filed a charge-sheet against 4 other persons under Ss. 323, 325 and 448, Indian Penal Code in C. C. No. 3097/1963 in the Court of Sub-Magistrate 3 Salem. The case was tried by the Sub-Magistrate who ultimately acquitted all the accused by his judgment, dated December 13, 1963. In the course of evidence at that trial the 1st petitioner was examined as P. W. 1 and 2nd petitioner as P. W. 2 and it is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner gave false evidence to the effect that the respondent was also among the trespassers and assailants and that he was armed with a gun which another accused took from him. After the conclusion of the trial the respondent filed a petition in the Court of the Magistrate under S. 476 (1), Criminal Procedure Code alleging that on October 11, 1963, he along with certain other Directors had attended a meeting of the Board of Directors of Chembra Peak Estate Ltd. from 4-30 p.m. to 5-15 p.m. at Bangalore and that he was not at Yercaud on October 11, 1963, and prayed for the prosecution of the petitioners for giving false evidence under S. 193, Indian Penal Code. The respondent produced a copy of the Draft Minutes of the Board meeting and also cited certain witnesses in support of his case. After considering the matter, the Sub-Magistrate of Salem held that he was satisfied that the respondent could not have been present at the alleged occurrence on October 11, 1963, at Yercaud and that P. Ws. 1 and 2 deliberately committed perjury and implicated Mr. Rajesh as among the assailants. The Sub-Magistrate thought that in the interest of justice the petitioners should be prosecuted under S. 193, Indian Penal Code and accordingly filled a complaint against the petitioners under S. 193, Indian Penal Code in the Court of District Magistrate (Judicial), Salem. The petitioners contended that the complaint was not maintainable in law because the trying Magistrate had not followed the procedure under S. 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code and it was therefore not open to the Magistrate to take recourse to the provisions of S. 476, Criminal Procedure Code. By his order, dated February 10, 1964, the District Magistrate discharged the petitioners holding that the complaint was not sustainable in view of the decision of this Court in Shabir Hussein Bholu v. State of Maharashtra , (1963) Supp (1) SCR 501. Thereupon the respondent filed Criminal R. C. No. 1261 of 1964 in the Madras High Court against the order of the District Magistrate (Judicial), Salem. By his judgment, dated December 9, 1965, Anantanarayanan, J. set aside the order of the District Magistrate (Judicial) and directed that the case should be taken up by the District Magistrate and the trial proceeded with in accordance with law.
2. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the order of the Madras High Court, dated December 9, 1965, in Cri. R. C. No. 1261 of 1964.
3. The question of law arising in this case is-what is the true meaning and scope of S. 476, Criminal Procedure Code in the context of S. 479-A (1) and (6), Criminal Procedure Code with regard to a prosecution authorised by a Court in respect of an offence of perjury committed before it in the course of the trial?
4. Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure to be followed for prosecution of offenders in case of certain offences affecting the administration of justice. S. 476 sets out the procedure for prosecution of offenders for offences enumerated in S. 195 (1) (b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If a
