Judgment

HEGDE, J. - The only substantial question that arises for decision in this appeal by special leave is as to whether the requirements of Section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been complied with before instituting the complaint from which this appeal arise and if they have not been complied with whether the prosecution is vitiated?

2. In July 1965, there was a dacoity within the limits of Railway Police Station, Nagpur. Several properties belonging to the Railways were stolen in the course of that dacoity. During the investigation of that offence, the Railway Police sought the assistance of the local police. Inspector Khandagale (D. W. 1) who was in-charge of the Tehsil Police Station directed the appellant, the Sub-Inspector working under him to assist the Railway police in the investigation of the case. Part of the investigation was carried on by the appellant. Two of the persons arrested in connection with that dacoity were Ambadas and Deorao. They are said to have made certain statements on July, 21, 1965. It is further alleged that in pursuance of the information given by Deorao, the police in the presence of the Panchas recovered certain properties. The concerned panchnama was attested by two witnesses viz, Pochanna and Abdul Gani. After the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against several persons including Ambadas and Deorao accusing them of the commission of an offence under Section 395, I. P. C. After preliminary enquiry the case was committed to the Court of Session, Nagpur and was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur as Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1968 in his file. The trial of the case commenced on June 6, 1966. Pochanna, one of the Panch witnesses was examined on June 9, 1966. He did not support the prosecution Abdul Gani the other Panch witness also had been cited as a witness but he was not present in Court on June 9, 1966: On June10, 1966, one person who claimed himself to be Abdul Gani who, had attested the panchanama, was examined. He deposed that he had attested the panchnama and that he was present at the time the recoveries were made. On June 11, 1966, the appellant was examined. The appellant deposed that the person examined on the previous day was Abdul Gani and that person had attested the panchnama in question. Thereafter the case took a new turn not appears that the accused came to know that the person examined on June 10, 1966 was not Abdul Gani but one Dilawar and that the real Abdul Gani had migrated from Nagpur and settled down at Rajnandgaon. On enquiry their Counsel, Mr. Ingle came to know that Dilawar who posed himself as Abdul Gani was involved in a criminal case pending in the Munsiff s Court in Nagpur. After ascertaining all the facts, Mr. Ingle filed an application before the learned trial Judge alleging that the witness who posed himself as Abdul Gani and spoke in support of the recovery panchnama was an imposter and that he was not the real attestor to the panchnama. Therein he further stated that the name of that person was Dilawar and he was the son of one Munirsha. Thereafter the learned trial Judge recalled the said witness and further examined him on June 14, 1966. At that time the witness confessed that he was not Abdul Gani and that he did not attest the Panchnama, but he had been compelled by the appellant to depose falsely. After the examination of this witness, the learned trial Judge being prima facie of the opinion that the appellant had given perjured testimony and that he has fabricated false evidence, issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for perjury and for fabricating false evidence for the purpose of the case. The appellant showed cause on June 16, 1966. In the statement filed by him he again asserted that the person examined on June 10, 1966 was Abdul Gani, the attestor of the panchnama. He denied the fact that the said witness is Dilawar. He went further and averred that the witness had been p