1. This appeal is preferred under Section 341 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22.8.2001 made in Crl.M.P. 993/2001 of Sessions Court, Thrissur.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this criminal appeal is as follows:

The appellant herein was the accused in S.C.No.73/1998. The offence alleged therein was under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. A boy aged about 13 years, who was examined as PW2 before the court below, was the victim and it was alleged that the accused called the caste name in a public place while he was going to play. It is also the case that since his cousin was coming, the accused went away. After 5 or 6 days, a complaint was filed before police knowingly that it was a false complaint. It was accepted by the 2nd respondent herein and a crime was registered for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The complaint before police was filed by the 1st respondent herein. Thereafter investigation was conducted and accused surrendered before the special court i.e. Sessions Court, Thrissur and bail was granted on the very same day. After investigation, final report was filed and court took cognizance and the appellant herein was released on bail on the very same conditions on which he was released at the crime stage.

3. The case was tried. PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the defence Exts.D1 to D3 were also marked. It is pertinent to note that the case was conducted by the appellant himself. After consideration, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. Thereafter, after a passage of one year and 8 months, an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. was filed as Crl.M.P.No.993/2001 before the Sessions Court requesting to file a complaint before the concerned Magistrate for initiating prosecution for giving false evidence before the Special Court. That petition was dismissed by the court below. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, this appeal is filed by the appellant.

4. Today, when the appeal came up for hearing, Adv. Sri. Thomas M. Jacob appeared for the appellant and submitted before this court that in paragraph 33 of the judgment of acquittal, the then Sessions Judge categorically stated that “I can perceive the agony of the accused. Here was an unfair allegation being made against him”. It is also highlighted before me that in paragraph 34, it is stated that “the accused does not appear to be far from truth when he lamented before this court that this false complaint and prosecution was initiated by PW6 with the tacit prior approval of the higher officials of the police”. It is also opined in paragraph 40 that “they (police officer) have acted without conscience”. Thus, it can be seen that a false evidence has been tendered not only by the 1st respondent but also by the 2nd respondent and the court should not have dismissed the petition.

5. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. It is the submission that it is a case where an allegation under the special statute was made. When a cognizable offence is made out, a police officer is bound to record the same and register the crime. It is relevant to note that the Sessions Court not categorized the evidence of PW2 as false. It is only on the background of the other incidents, the court came to a conclusion that an offence is not made out. The main ground on which allegation was found to be false is that there was a delay of about 4 – 5 days in lodging the F.I. Statement. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, that itself is an indication of truth. If a false statement was actually given, the date also could have been changed and can be given as one occurred immediately before lodging the complaint. It was not done so. Under such circumstances, considering all these aspects the court not proceeded under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel appearing fo