Point of Law: Courts should be prima facie satisfied that the proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C should be initiated for the interests of justice and that there must be prima facie evidence supporting a conclusion that false evidence was tendered.

ORDER :

The deposition given by the petitioner in a case tried by the Sessions Court has landed him as an accused for the offence of perjury. Pursuant to the order of the Sessions Court finding grounds to proceed against the petitioner under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) a complaint has been forwarded to the Magistrate and registered as C.C. No.8 of 2006 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kollam. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the said proceedings.

2. In a notorious case referred to as 'Kalluvaathukkal liquor tragedy' petitioner was examined as PW71. The case was numbered as S.C. No.214 of 2001 before the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. When petitioner was examined in court, he deposed contrary to the statement given by him under section 164 Cr.P.C. and therefore he was declared hostile. While deposing in court, he stated that his earlier statement was under threat and coercion from the police.

Despite petitioner turning hostile to the persecution case, the main accused were convicted and their conviction was upheld all along including the Supreme Court though the sentences were modified in respect of some of the accused. The decision is reported in Chandran alias Manichan alias Maniyan and Others v. State of Kerala [(2011) 5 SCC 161].

3. In the meantime, the learned Sessions Judge had observed in paragraph 365 of the judgment that, petitioner herein had given false evidence and initiated action under section 344 Cr.P.C, by registering a case as M.C. No.8 of 2002 in S.C. No.214 of 2001 on the files of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Kollam. Later, by an order dated 17.11.2005, after a preliminary enquiry the court was of the opinion that there were prima facie grounds for proceeding against the petitioner since he had turned hostile to the prosecution case denying bluntly the statement given by him under section 164 Cr.P.C. On the above basis, the learned Sessions Judge forwarded the findings to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kollam under section 344(3) Cr.P.C along with a complaint and the relevant passage of the judgment in the sessions case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as C.C. No.8 of 2006 and issued process to the petitioner for his appearance.

4. In the meantime since the Supreme Court had stayed the entire proceedings in the Special Leave Petition preferred by the accused, the complaint against the petitioner was not proceeded further. After the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP, the learned Magistrate proceeded with C.C. No.8 of 2006 and it was at this juncture that this petition has been preferred.

5. Sri.M.T.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution was successful in obtaining conviction for most of the accused before the Sessions Court and therefore the proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C ought not to have been resorted to. It was also contended that given the long lapse of time the court ought to have dropped all proceedings against the petitioner and further that the proceedings are vitiated by illegality and impropriety.

6. Sri.Vipin Narayan, learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand contended that the proceedings have been initiated on valid and legal grounds and therefore there is no reason to interfere and the law must take its course.

7. Petitioner is being proceeded against for deposing before the Sessions Court in S.C. No.214 of 2001 as PW71 contrary to the statement given by him to the Magistrate earlier, under section 164 Cr.P.C The deposition of the petitioner as PW71 was on 17.08.2001. Despite petitioner resiling from his earlier statement under section 164 Cr.P.C, the learned Sessions Judge had found the main accused guilty and even sentenced him and other accused to life imprisonment.

8. When a person resiles from his earlier statement given on oath, in a subsequent deposition, also given on oath