IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1941

Crl.MC.No.1542 of 2019

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 11/2018 of GRAMA NYAYALAYA,

KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI. DATED 04-12-2018

PETITIONER/S:

SAJAN MATHEW

AGED 50 YEARS

S/O MATHEW, VATTAKKUNNEL VEEDU, KADAYANIKKAD P.O,

ULLAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF

KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682031.

OTHER PRESENT:

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR -SRI SWAMIDHAS K N

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.06.2019,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No.1542 of 2019

2

CR

O R D E R

The order under challenge in this proceeding initiated

under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1993 (for

short the Code) is one passed by the Grama Nyayalaya,

Kattappana registering M.C No. 11/2018 in ST No. 154/2017

against the petitioner following its decision to proceed

against him under Section 344 of the Code.

2. The petitioner is a defence witness in ST.No. 154/2017

examined as DW1 before the Grama Nyayalaya, Kattappana

on 04.12.2018. The prosecution case against accused in ST

No.154/2017 is that on 16.11.2017 at 5pm, he drove a private

Stage Carrier Bus along a place called Puliyanmala causing

the death of one Shahina, who was travelling in a scooter

driven by her husband.

3. What the accused sought to establish through his

defence witness, the petitioner herein, was that the accident

was the result of negligence of the scootorist and the

petitioner had occasion to witness the true incident since he

Crl.MC.No.1542 of 2019

3

too was a passenger in the bus.

4. After recording the deposition of the petitioner and

also watching his demeanour in the witness box, it appeared

to the Grama Nyayalaya that the petitioner was uttering false

hood with the sole intention of saving the accused from the

clutches of criminal charge. After enumerating the grounds in

detail, the Grama Nyayalaya formed an opinion at the end of

his examination on the same day itself that the petitioner

knowingly and willfully gave false evidence and accordingly

ordered to register M.C. No.11/2018 against him in exercise of

powers under Section 344 of the Code. It is an admitted fact

that trial of ST No.154/2017 is still pending and judgment or

final order in the case is yet to be pronounced. Being

aggrieved by the action directed against the petitioner, he

seeks to quash the order passed by the Grama Nyayalaya on

the ground that the same was issued in violation of the

principles enshrined in Section 344 of the Code.

5.

It was contended that Section 344 of the Code did

not permit initiation of proceedings under the said Section

otherwise than at the time of delivery of the judgment or final

Crl.MC.No.1542 of 2019

4

order disposing of a judicial proceeding pending before a

court of Session or Magistrate of First Class. The impugned

order pronounced is assailed as being too premature enough

to form a valid and successful foundation for prosecution of

the petitioner under Section 344 of the Code. It was also

contended that in any view of the matter, there was dearth of

materials sufficient to charge the petitioner with offence of

perjury and therefore itself, the order of the court below

taking cognizance of offence of perjury against the petitioner

is without jurisdiction.

6. Section 344 of the Code reads as follows:-

S. 344. Summary procedure for trial for giving false

evidence.-(1) If, at the time of delivery of any judgment or

final order disposing of any judicial proceeding, a Court of

Session or Magistrate of the first class expresses an opinion to

the effect that any witness appearing in such proceeding had

knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated

false evidence with the intention that