A court giving a complaint for perjury under section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, must give a finding as to which of the two contradictory statements is false.

( 1 ) THESE petitions arise out of the same matter and they will be disposed of by this common order. In P. R. C. No. 2 of 1967 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Srikakulam, the petitioners were examined as witnesses to speak to the murder of one Akkayya. Previous to this proceeding, in the course of the investigation, the statements of both these witnesses were recorded by the Magistrate under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code. When they gave evidence before the learned Munsif Magistrate, Srikakulam, contrary to what they had stated in their statements under section 164, he made an observation in the final order passed by him that they had intentionally given false evidence either before him or before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasannapet, who had recorded the statements of these witnesses under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, and for the eradication of the evil of perjury, and in the interests of justice it was expedient that both these witnesses should be prosecuted for perjury. Thereafter an explanation was called for by the learned Magistrate from these witnesses. Both of them stated in their replies that owing to the pressure and influence of the police they were obliged to subscribe to the prosecution story at the time when their statements were recorded by the Magistrate at Narasannapet but the real position was that they did not witness the occurrence. In the course of the evidence which was recorded by the learned Magistrate, Srikakulam, both these witnesses had stated categorically that they were kept in the police station for three days and therefore they were produced before the Magistrate, Narasannapet. This supports the explanation given, by them with respect to their statements recorded under section 164, Criminal procedure Code, that they were given under the pressure of the police. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended before me that it is for the Magistrate to give a finding before he proceeds to lodge a complaint as to which of the two contradictory statements-given by the witness is false. He refers me to the wording of section 479-A the relevant portion of which is in the following terms :-". . . . . . . . . . . . make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court setting forth the evidence, which in the opinion of the Court is false. "

( 2 ) IN my view, the language of the section is very plain, and it could only mean that the Court giving a complaint has to give a finding as to which of the two contradictory statements is false. Mr. Seetharami Reddy appearing for the Public prosecutor has contended before me that it is not necessary for the Court giving the complaint to say which of the two contradictory statements is false. In support of his argument, he has referred to two cases on2 of which is Public Prosecutor v. Nagalinga, (1958) 2 An. W. R. 189 : (1958) M. L. J. 501 : (1964) M. L. J. (Crl.) 338 : A. I. R. 1963 (Crl) 649 : A. I. R. 1959 A. P. 250.

( 3 ) BUT that was a case in which the learned Judge was dealing with a complaint which was made under section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, the language of which is different from that of section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code. In my view thi case would not help the prosecution. The other case referred to is shabir Hussain v. State of Maharashtra. , (1964) 1s. C. J. 609: (1963) 1 S. C. R. (Supp) The question that fell far consideration of their Lordships in that case was whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay could not take cognizance of a complaint against the appellant for an offence under section 193, Indian Penal Code, because the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, who had filed a complaint, had failed to follow the procedure laid down in section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code. The Bombay High Court itself had observed when an application for revision was filed before it that the provisions of section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, were not complied with but it was still ope

Click Here to Read the rest of this document