Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for non- petitioner No.2.

(2). The short question arising for decision in this petition is whether in an inquiry which is being conducted by a Court under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the persons against whom there are allegations of having committed offences covered by Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, have a right to take part in the inquiry and cross-examine the witnesses who may be examined by the Court either suo moto or at the instance of the complainant ?

(3). By the order dated 13.08.96 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur, in Criminal Case No.98/96 Kishori Lal Vs. Banshi Lal in proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code held that the non-applicants against whom the in- quiry was being conducted had a right to take part in the proceedings. He, therefore, rejected the application filed by the complainant party.

(4). A revision petition was filed against the order dated 13.08.96 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jodhpur.

(5). The revision petition (No.16/96 Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan) was disposed of by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.2, Jodhpur by order dated 20th December, 1996. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that the non-applicants (petitioners) had a right to take part in the inquiry being conducted under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code but they had no right to cross-examine the witnesses to be examined during the inquiry.

(6). Feeling aggrieved by the latter part of the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, the petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with the prayer that the impugned order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge be quashed and the petitioners be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses to be examined in the inquiry under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(7). In order that the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for non-petitioner No.2 may be properly appreciated it would be pertinent to point out that Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code carves out an exception, in case of certain offences which are committed by parties or other persons in relation to a proceedings in the Court. On account of the provisions of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the general power of the Criminal Court to take cognizance under Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code is subject to the restriction that the cognizance of the offences mentioned in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be taken otherwise than on a complaint of the concerned Court. A complaint by the Court, in which or in relation to proceedings of which Court, the alleged offences were committed is necessary for enabling the Criminal Court to take cognizance of the offences. Before a complaint may be filed by the Court in respect of offences covered by Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code it is necessary that the Court must comply with the pro- visions of Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code. Provisions analogous to Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were to be found in Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court in which the offences mentioned in Section 195 are committed empowered to conduct the preliminary inquiry.

(8). The very object of the provisions contained in Section 195 read with Sec- tion 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the provisions of Section 195 read with Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 as pointed out in Patel Lalji Bhai Soma Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat (1), was to enable the Court in which the offence has been committed to take steps to protect the judicial proceedings from being interfered with by the Commission of offences in relation to such proceed- ings so that the dignity of the Court may be maintained.

(9). The very object of the inquiry

Click Here to Read the rest of this document