BHANDARI, J.—This Court while deciding the Civil Writ Petition No. 197 of 1959 (Madan Singh Vs. Union of India and others) by its order dated 28th October, 1960, directed Bansilal and Ugamsingh to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for swearing and presenting false affidavits in this Court.

2. On a complaint lodged by Shri Radhe Shyam, the Train Examiner, Uterlai, Madan Singh was charge-sheeted on 12th February, 1958, for misconduct, in a departmental enquiry held on that complaint. Madan Singh cited three witnesses in defence, two of them were Bansilal, fitter and! Ugamsingh, Oiler, before the Enquiry Committee, of which Mr. Walters, Carriage and Wagons Inspector, was the Chairman. These two persons showed their reluctance to give evidence in presence of Madansingh, as they apprehended that he will take retaliatory action against them, if they stated against him in his presence. The members of the Committee examined these two persons in the absence of Madansingh under Rule 1707 clause (d) and Rules 49 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Their statements were recorded in English and were read over to them and they signed each page of the deposition in acknowledgment of the correctness. The report of the Enquiry Committee was that the charges were proved against Madansingh and that he was guilty of misconduct and indiscipline. This report was considered by the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, who passed an order of removal against Madansingh. Madansingh thereafter presented a writ petition in this Court on 12th May, 1959, praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of his dismissal. This writ petition was contested by the opposite parties to this writ petition, and Madansingh submitted a rejoinder along with three affidavits, one of himself and the other two of Bansilal and Ugamsingh. In their affidavits Bansilal and Ugamsingh stated that their statements were not correctly recorded by the Enquiry Committee and they had not stated what had been recorded therein. The affidavit of Bansilal was verified by the Oath Commissioner, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, on 22nd August, 1960, and the affidavit of Ugamsingh was verified by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Barmer, on 24th August, 1960. The opposite parties thereupon filed a reply to the rejoinder with an affidavit of Shri N. M. Walters, Carriage and Wagons Inspector that Bansilal and Ugamsingh had deposed what is contained in their statements recorded before the Enquiry Committee.

3. This Court while deciding the writ petition took the view that there was no reason to disbelieve the statement of Mr. Walters that the above statements recorded by the Committee were correctly recorded and felt satisfied that these persons have subsequently gone back on their statements and had sworn false affidavits.

4. Under these circumstances, this Court directed Bansilal and Ugamsingh to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for swaring and presenting false affidavits in this Court.

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, notices were issued to Bansilal and Ugamsingh. Both of them have appeared through their counsel, who have submitted that in view of sub-sec.(6) of sec.479-A Cr. P.C. no proceedings can be taken against Bansilal and Ugamsingh for giving false evidence. It was also urged that the statements before the Enquiry Committee were recorded in English and were not translated in vernacular and they could not properly grasp as to what had been recorded in their statements. Bansilal has also filed an application that it was not a fit case in which prosecution should be ordered against him as he was a poor person with a large family and had been in employment of the Northern Railway from 15th October, 1946, and in case he is prosecuted he will be ruined.

6. The learned Government Advocate has urged that the provisions of sec. 479A of the Criminal Procedure Code have no application to the case on three grounds. Firstly, it is said that this Court was exercising its juri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document