The petitioner in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is one of the defendants in an Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, “DRT” for short, constituted under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. During the course of the said proceedings, the petitioner filed Ext.P6 petition requesting the DRT to conduct an enquiry against the second respondent therein, the Chief Manager of the Bank, under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and to make a complaint to the Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction to initiate proceedings. That petition was supported by an affidavit. The allegations in the said affidavit require to be referred to, without prejudice to the contentions before the DRT, for the sole purpose of noting the broad features of the allegations of the writ petitioner, which are as follows:

Upon production of certain documents, the fraud and the perjury committed on the DRT by the bank and its officers have come to light. The bill discounting account produced along with the original application and bill discounting account produced pursuant to the order on I.A.1229 of 2002 are totally at variance with each other. The major disparities and discrepancies in the two accounts statements, as are alleged, are as detailed in paragraph No.5 of the said affidavit. The cash credit account is also deliberately and purposefully prepared for production before the DRT. The last but one page in the cash credit account is numbered as 296 and continued from 295 whereas the last page is 341 and is continued from page 340. This mistake can never occur in the computer printout of an account statement. The mistakes are not accidental and are deliberately manipulated to suit the bank’s case and to mislead the DRT. Both the statements are certified to be the entries in the ordinary books and original data of accounts as stored in an electronic storage device made in the usual and ordinary course of business. The totally different statement of accounts produced by the bank pertaining to a single account would clearly reveal that there has been a concerted and deliberate attempt to hoodwink the DRT. The Chief Manager of he Bank, in his proof affidavit, had termed the bill discounting statement produced along with the original application as such, but when the discrepancies were pointed out by the defendants an attempt was made to explain away the manipulation by terming the bill discounting account produced along with the original application as the statement of bills over due position which was purchased on an earlier date without mentioning the date. The statements made in the counter affidavit in O.P.No.30148 of 2002, before the High Court run contrary to the statement made in the original application proof affidavit, as well as the evidence tendered by the Chief Manager before the DRT. There has been a deliberate and concerted effort to give false evidence before the DRT, by producing false documents and giving false statements. As per Section 191 of I.P.C., whoever being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true is said to give false evidence. The respondent in the application has deliberately produced two documents purported to be bill discounting statement and also a cash credit statement which are mutually contradictory and which does not reflect the true and correct entries. The said statements have been produced with the knowledge that they are not true accounts and with this knowledge the respondent has given evidence that they are true account statement. By his said act the respondent has committed an offence punishable under Section 191 of I.P.C. The offence being one committed in relation to a proce