Judgment

DUA, J.: This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated March 13. 1968 affirming the order of a learned single Judge of that Court directing that a complaint be filed against the appellant for his prosecution for making a false statement in para 10 of his affidavit dated July 6. 1960 to the effect that he had not been acting as Sarpanch till December 7, 1957.

2. The relevant facts necessary for understanding the controversy may now be briefly stated. Chajoo Ram, appellant, was elected Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat of Risia Bazar, Tehsil Nanpora, District Bharaic at the election held for that office on October 29, 1956. Radhey Shyam (respondent in this Court) who was defeated in that election filed an election petition which was dismissed on June 3, 1958. During the trial of that petition an injunction was issued restraining the appellant from functioning as a Sarpanch. That order remained in force from December 3, 1956 to December 10, 1957. After the dismissal of the election petition, the appellant started functioning as Sarpanch. Several complaints also seem to have been made by Radhey Shyam and some others to the District Magistrate, alleging irregularities to have been committed by the appellant. As no action was taken on those complaints Radhe, Shyam, respondent, filed a writ petition (W. P. No. 89 of 1960) in the Allahabad High Court praying for a mandamus directing enquiries into the allegations contained in his complaint against the appellant. This writ petition was allowed on September 4, 1961 and a writ of mandamus was issued directing the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to hold an enquiry against the appellant but the question of determining whether it was in public interest to hold an enquiry was left to those authorities. In the course of the writ proceedings several affidavits were filed in the High Court by the contesting parties. We are, however, only concerned with para 10 of the affidavit dated July 6, 1960 filed by the appellant. That paragraph reads:

"That the deponent was not acting as a Sarpanch till 7th December, 1957. when he was given over charge of the office of Sarpanch by opposite party No. 4 Chhotey Lal Sahayak Sarpanch the cases mentioned below none were entrusted to the benches by the deponent but were entrusted by the Sahayak Sarpanch opposite party No. 4 who was acting in place of the under the orders of the Court after the petitioner had filed election petition. The cases mentioned below were dealt with by the deponent under the old procedure in the absence of any direction issued to him".

Then four cases are mentioned which had been filed in No, 1956. In order to fully appreciate the contents of this paragraph it is necessary to reproduce paras 9 and 10 of Radhey Shyamn s affidavit dated. March .28, 1960 to which the appellant s affidavit dated July 6, 1960 was a reply:-

"9. That the Sarpanch (opposite party No. 3) referred many cases to the Special Bench constituted by him. 21 cases out of the first list of 22 cases were allotted to this Special Bench by him. Further out of 62 criminal cases and 35 civil cases instituted in the year 1956-57 the Bench consisting of the deponent as a Panch (Bench No. 1) was allotted only16 criminal and 8 civil cases whereas it should have been allotted 21 criminal and 12 civil cases.

10. That in many cases the deponent was not informed of the dates of the hearing fixed by Sarpanch and many a time he could not therefore, present himself in the Bench and the cases were decided in his absence. Sarpanch who was not a member of this Bench participated in the proceedings of this Bench".

In reply to para 9 of this affidavit the appellant had stated in his affidavit of July 6, 1960:-

"There is no dispute with regard to the procedure laid down in this paragraph. It is a new amendment".

There was a reminder affidavit dated July 15, 1960 filed by Radhey Shyam in which r