The intentional change of version by a witness to weaken the prosecution case warrants prosecution under Section 195 of CrPC, and a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory in such cases.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Criminal Appeal No.251/2018, by which the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by JMFC, Guna in Criminal Case No. 145/2013 has been affirmed.

2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present revision in short are that one trial under Sections 120-B and 412 of IPC was pending in S.T. No. 118/2010 on the allegations that on 13.07.2009 one Rakesh Jain, who was travelling in a bus, was looted and an amount of Rs.20.00 lacs was taken away. The applicant was one of the seizure witness of the looted amount. He appeared in the trial and stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused namely Ramkumar Niranjan had made a memorandum and had disclosed that he has kept his share of Rs.80,000/- in his village Pahada and, accordingly, an amount of Rs.80,000/- was seized from the house of the accused vide seizure memo Ex. P-7. Since the applicant had given the incorrect evidence, therefore, he was declared hostile and in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, he corrected himself and submitted that in fact, the amount of Rs.80,000/- was seized from Ramkumar Niranjan from his house at Bhander and he also clarified that as he had forgotten the incident, therefore, by mistake he had disclosed that the amount was recovered from Pahada village. The applicant was cross-examined by the accused Ramkumar Niranjan and in cross-examination, he admitted that he is the member of Gram Raksha Samiti, but again he took a somersault and again said that the amount was seized from the village Pahada. Thus, it is clear that the applicant was intentionally trying to weaken the prosecution case.

3. The Trial Court by passing the final judgment dated 04.02.2013 passed in S.T. No.118/2010 also directed that since the applicant had intentionally changed his version and, therefore, the complaint be filed under Section 340 of CrPC for his prosecution under Section 195 of IPC. Accordingly, the complaint was filed and an objection was raised by the applicant by filing an application under Section 340 of CrPC that since no preliminary enquiry was conducted, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. By order dated 01.09.2018 the said application was rejected.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant preferred an appeal which too has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated29.06.2019 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Guna in Cr.A.No.251/2018.

5. It is submitted that in absence of preliminary enquiry, the direction to file complaint should not have been given. Further, the prosecution of every witness is not necessary merely on the ground that he has not supported the prosecution case.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

7. The first question for consideration is as to whether the preliminary enquiry is necessary for directing the prosecution of the witness and whether the witness is entitled for any hearing or not ?

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Pritish v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 253 has held as under:-

"9. Reading of the sub-section makes it clear that the hub of this provision is formation of an opinion by the court (before which proceedings were to be held) that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence which appears to have been committed. In order to form such opinion the court is empowered to hold a preliminary inquiry. It is not peremptory that such preliminary inquiry should be held. Even without such preliminary inquiry the court can form such an opinion when it appears to the court that an offence has been committed in relation to a proceeding in that court. It is important to notice that even when the court forms such an opinion it is not mandatory that the court should make a complaint. This sub-section has conferred a power on the court to do so. It does not mean that the