2002 Supreme(Raj) 1852
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
H.R.Panwar, J.
Ramesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Pet. No. 87 of 1996.
Decided On : 23-10-2002
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:G.K. Vyas, Advocate.
For the State: Anil Upadhyay, P.P.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 344(1)-petition filed against the taking of cognizance by the trial court-the petitioner examined as defence witness charged with making false statement-it was held that in the spur of moment the petitioner put signature believing the documents of food inspector-Impugned order taking cognizance under Section 344 Cr.P.C. is not justified and set aside - Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
1. - By this criminal miscellaneous petition moved under Section 482, Cr.P.C. petitioner Ramesh Kumar has challenged the finding recorded by the learned Chief Judl. Magistrate, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No. 118/93 whereby, in para 16 of the judgment, the trial Court took cognizance under Section 344(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner for making false statement on oath before the Court in criminal trial conducted against accused Naresh Singh and Smt. Rajbala. The petitioner was examined in the trial as D.W. 2.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned. I have also carefully gone through the statement of petitioner Ramesh Kumar recorded by the trial Court.
3. The petitioner has proved certain memos prepared by the Food Inspector at the time of taking sample from the shop of accused Naresh Singh and Smt. Rajbala. The petitioner has admitted his signatures on the various memos viz., Ex.. 8, Ex. 9, Ex. 10 and Ex. 12 vide which sample was taken by the Food Inspector, PW. 1. PC. Harsh. It appears that on certain points this witness (petitioner herein) failed to support the prosecution case for which the trial Court was of the view that the petitioner has deliberately made incorrect statement before the Court. On a careful perusal of the entire statement of the petitioner it appears that the petitioner has a pan shop adjacent to the shop run by accused Naresh Singh and Smt. Rajbala. The petitioner stated that there was rush in the shop and, in good faith, having believed the version of P.W. 1 P.C. Harsh he put his signatures on various memos prepared by the Food Inspector. To some extent the petitioner has also supported the prosecution case. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order taking cognizance under Section 344(1), Cr.RC. against the petitioner is more than warranted in the circumstances and, therefore, cannot be i sustained.
4. In this view of the matter, this miscellaneous petition under Section 482, Cr.PC. is allowed. The order impugn dated 10.11.1995 qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside.Petition allowed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
