Prosecution for perjury under Sections 182 and 193 IPC requires strict adherence to the mandatory procedure under Section 340 CrPC, including a preliminary inquiry and a finding of deliberate falsehood with mens rea, rather than mere inconsistencies in testimony.

Order on Board

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant / complainant challenging the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in paragraphs 27 to 35 of the judgment dated 19.02.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ambikapur, District – Surguja in Special Criminal Case No.01/2014.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant is the complainant in Crime No. 47/2011 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur (C.G.) against accused Akhtar Ahmad Siddiqui for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arises from allegations that the applicant’s mother, Smt. S. Tirky, who was working as a Supervisor at Anganbadi Centre, Mainpat (District Surguja), had retired from service about two years prior to the complaint. Her dues, including G.P.F. and leave encashment, were pending with the department. The accused, who was posted as a Clerk at the Project Office, Ambikapur, was responsible for processing her payment. It is alleged that he prepared a cheque of approximately Rs.3,00,000/- but demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant for releasing the cheque. Upon receiving the complaint, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur, organized a trap. On 08.08.2011, after completing necessary pre-trap formalities, the trap team reached Ambikapur. During the arranged meeting at the office of the District Programme Officer, the complainant allegedly handed over the bribe amount to the accused, upon which the trap team apprehended the accused red-handed and completed necessary seizure and procedural formalities.

3. After investigation and obtaining sanction for prosecution, a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ambikapur, registered as Special Criminal Case No. 01/2014. During trial, multiple prosecution witnesses, including the complainant, were examined, and the accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and as a defence witness. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of all charges. However, in paragraphs 27 to 35 of the judgment dated 19.02.2021, the trial Court held that the complainant had given false evidence and directed initiation of proceedings against him under Sections 182 and 193 IPC. The Court further directed filing of a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, authorized a court official to file the complaint, and appointed an Amicus Curiae to conduct the prosecution. Aggrieved by these adverse observations and directions, the applicant has filed the present criminal revision.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court has erred both in law and on facts while deciding Point of Determination No. 4 and in making adverse observations against the applicant made in paragraphs 27 to 35 of the impugned judgment, thereby wrongly directing prosecution under Sections 182 and 193 IPC. The finding recorded in paragraph 34 that the complainant appears to have given false evidence is unsupported by cogent reasoning. The trial Court selectively relied on a portion of the complainant’s deposition (particularly para 28 referring to part