NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, J.

One Kuriakose was examined as a prosecution witness in a Sessions trial. Learned Sessions Judge proceeded against him under S. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') on the premise that he had committed the offence punishable under S. 193 of the Penal Code alleging that he gave false evidence. He was examined as P.W. 14 being an attestor in Ext. P17 mahazar which was prepared in respect of the recovery of a knife effected by a Circle Inspector of Police. In the course of evidence, P.W. 14 stated that he did not know about the contents of the mahazar (Ext. P17) and that he did not witness the recovery of the knife from the house of the accused. (Of course, placing reliance on the evidence of the investigating officer, recovery of M.O. 2 weapon was accepted by the Sessions Court and the case against the accused ended in conviction).

2. Learned Sessions Judge criticised P.W. 14 in his judgment and qualified him as a person "who is prepared to mortgage his conscience to any extent to oblige a person in authority or for his own aggrandisement". Learned Judge also remarked that "from the manner in which this witness was giving evidence before Court, I am convinced that he has been stating utter falsehood before Court by denying having witnesses the recovery of the knife". Para 32 of the judgment further reads as follows :

"Disguising himself as an independent and disinterested witness, P.W. 14 was simulating a veracious disposition by rubberising the facts in order to fit neatly into the mould prepared for him by the accused. He who admitted his signature in Ext. P17 mahazar relating to the recovery of M.O. 2 weapon denied having witnessed the recovery. Although he admitted that he had gone to the house of the accused when the latter led the police party there P.W. 14 would say that he merely paced up and down in the front courtyard of the house of the accused and that he did not follow the accused and the police party to the rear side of the house of the accused. He would say that he merely affixed his signature in Ext. P17 mahazar on being requested to do so by the Police. According to him he did not read the mahazar nor was it read over to him. This is contrary to what is recited there. He admitted that he is not a person who puts his signature on being asked to do so or who signs a written paper without reading its contents. His confession that he is a close friend and neighbour of the accused and that on several occasions he has borrowed moneys from the accused, has exposed him. From the manner in which this witness was giving evidence before Court, I am convinced that he has been stating utter falsehood before Court by denying having witnessed the recovery of the knife. In spite of taking a solemn Oath, this witness had no qualms to indulge in venal perjury before Court. His palpable attempt before this Court was to salvage his helping friend. The evidence of P.W. 19 (the investigating officer) who has inspired the confidence of the Court shows that the seizure and recovery evidenced by Exts. P15 and P17 mahazars are true and believable. After having obliged the police by figuring as a witness to the recovery, P.W. 14 was making a clean somersault calculated to subvert the prosecution case against the accused. Witnesses of this sort are potential dangers to our society and it will be a travesty of justice to ignore and discharge them as inevitable aberrations. I am, prima facie, of the view that P.W. 14 was committing an offence punishable under S. 193 of the Penal Code and that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the said offence. Accordingly, a notice in Form No. 33 of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice shall be issued to P.W. 14."

3. A notice under Form No. 33 of the Criminal Rules of Practice was issued to P.W. 14. On receipt of the notice, he filed an explanation before the Court. He also reminded the Court that there was