1997 Supreme(Raj) 1345
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Rajendra Saxena, P.K.Tewari, JJ.
Arjun Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India (CBI)and others - Respondent
D.B. Cr. Contempt Petition No. 4/1996.
Decided On : 5-09-1997
Proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. can only be initiated where the alleged perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction for such perjury is reasonably probable or likely.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 340 - SECTION 195(1)(B) - INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 340 CR.P.C. - FALSE AFFIDAVITS AND FORGED DOCUMENTS - NO MATERIAL TO SHOW OFFENCE COMMITTED - PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, facing trial for defrauding banks, filed a petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking inquiry against CBI officials for allegedly filing false affidavits and forged documents in proceedings before the High Court. The petitioner claimed that the affidavits misled the Court into believing that the Public Prosecutors (PPs) and Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) of the CBI were not under the administrative control of the Superintendent of Police CBI (SPE), which led to the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition challenging his detention.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner failed to provide any material to show that the impugned judgment of the High Court was obtained on the basis of false and incorrect affidavits or that the non-petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy. The Court also noted that the documents relied upon by the petitioner were not in existence at the time of the impugned judgment and that the judgment could not be reviewed or recalled at this stage.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-petitioners committed any offence under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. by filing false affidavits and forged documents in the proceedings before the High Court. 2. Whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. based on the allegations made by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. can only be initiated where the alleged perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction for such perjury is reasonably probable or likely. 2. The Court further held that the petitioner failed to provide any material to prima facie show that the non-petitioners had committed any offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. in the proceedings before the High Court. 3. The Court also held that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. based on the allegations made by the petitioner, as the petition appeared to be a transparent device to protract the trials of the special cases pending against him.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition as frivolous and misconceived.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner has filed this amended application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and prayed that an inquiry be initiated against the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, superintendent of Police CBI- SPE, Jaipur and Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, the then SP, CBI (SPE), Jaipur non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in respect of offence committed by them referred to in S. 195(1), Cr.P.C. during proceedings in S.B. ; Civil Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1717/1983 and D.B. Special (Writ) Appeal No. 314/1983, Union of India v. Arjun Singh .
2. The skeletal facts necessary for disposal of this application are that, the petitioner is facing trial at Jaipur, Agra etc. for allegedly defrauding various banks. In Special Case No. 6/1981, State v. Sunil Singh and others , he has been convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for CBI SPE cases), Jaipur, for offences under Sections 468 & 471, IPC. Special Cases Nos. 1 & 2 of 1983 State v. Bhimsen and others , wherein the petitioner is also a co-accused, are pending before the learned Special Judge (CBI cases), Jaipur. These cases are fixed for final arguments for last 4-5 years. The petitioner, who was in the year 1983 lodged in jail filed SB Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1717/83 in this Court challenging his detention on the ground that the Public Prosecutor and the Assistant Public Prosecutors of the CBI, who were prosecuting him in the afore-mentioned cases are directly working under the administrative control of the Superintendent of Police CBI (SPE), that they also took part in the investigation in these cases and as such, their appointments were against the provisions contained in Sections 24 & 25 of the Cr.P.C., and, therefore, prosecution against him in those cases stood vitiated and his detention was illegal. The learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice DL Mehta) by his order dated 28.7.83 observed that it was not denied in the reply filed on behalf of the CBI (SPE) that the PPs/APPs are subordindate to the SP CBI (SPE). He, therefore, directed that the PPs/APPs subordinate to the SP CBI (SPE) shall not he allowed to act as PP/APP. Aggrieved by the said order dated 28.7.83 of the learned SB, the Union of India (Non- petitioner No. 1) filed DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 314/1983, which came to be decided by a learned DB of this Court comprising of Hon'hle Mr. Justice SC Agrawal & Hon'ble Mr. Justice SN Bhargava (as they then were) vide judgment dated 16.2.1984. The learned DB after considering the provisions of Sections 24 & 25 of the Cr.P.C. to relevant case law as also the organisational structure of the CBI in the context of appointment and working PPs/APPs allowed special appeal and set aside the order dated 28.7.83 of the SB and consequently dismissed the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by Arjun Singh. It appears that the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition against the judgment dated 16.2.84 of the DB but the Apex Court dismissed the same. Thus, the DB judgment dated 16.2.84 attained finality.
3. Thereafter the petitioner initially filed these petitions for initiation of contempt proceedings against the non-petitioners and Sarva Shri S.P. Tyagi, the then Advocate for the CBI, D.K. Jain the then Sr. PP for CBI, and Altaf Hussain Sr. PP for CBI. However, on 19.8.96 the petitioner withdrew his prayer for initiating contempt of Court proceedings and asserted that his petition is for seeking relief under Section 340, Cr.P.C. only. He also wanted to suitably amend his petition. He has now filed this amended petition for initiating inquiry under Section 340, Cr.P.C.
4. The petitioner has strenuously canvassed that the non- petitioners had made false averments and submitted incorrect affidavits in their reply filed before this Court to the effect that PPs of CBI are not under the control of SP CBI and on that basis, the DB in its judgment dated 16.2.1984 at page 30 wrongly observed that (i) "the PP/APPs in the CBI function under the admini
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
