Supreme Court, Criminal Appeal, Section 479A CrPC, false evidence, Section 193 IPC, mandatory finding, prima facie nature, proper hearing, appellate court powers, order set aside
Order of the High Court directing complaint under Section 193 IPC set aside ¶77
The High Court failed to record the mandatory finding under Section 479A(1) that the appellant intentionally gave false evidence and that prosecution is expedient for eradication of perjury and in the interests of justice. ¶56
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 945
language it is possible to hold that a vehicle which is already in the limits of the Municipality, when it plies for hire, enters the municipal limits. So too, the words "bring within the limits of Mainpuri Municipality " in Rule I emphasize the idea that a laden vehicle cannot be brought within the Municipality until the toll due has been paid. One cannot bring within the Municipality a vehicle which is already in the Municipality. Confronted with the clear terminology used both in the section as well as in the Rules, the learned Counsel for the appellant attempted to argue that the words "Mainpuri Municipality" are comprehensive enough to take in part or parts of that Municipality and, therefore, when a la.den vehicle passes from one part of the Municipality to another part, it has to pay toll if there is a barrier between the two parts. This argument may perhaps be ingenious, but to our mind it is clearly unsound. We find it well nigh impossible to hold that a vehicle is brought within the limits of the Municipality when it is brought from one part of the Municipality to another part.
1959
The Municipal Board, Mainpuri v. Kanhaiya Lal
Subba Rao].
In the result, we agree with the construction put upon the section by the High Court. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed
DR. B. K. PAL CHAUDHRY
1959
v.
THE STATE OE' ASSAM
October 7
(S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and M. HrnAYATULLAH, JJ.)
Criminal Procedure-Intentionally giving false evidence-Show ca11se notice-Duty of Appellate Court--Criminal Procedure Code, s. 479A, su.b-ss. (r) and (5).
By sub-s. (1) of s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure "when any ... Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceedings ...... and that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury ...... and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him, the Court shall, at the time of the delivery of the
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1))
;
I
r959 judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reason therefor and may, if it so Dr. B. K. Pal thinks fit, after giving the witnesses an opportunity of being Chaudhry heard, make a complaint thereof." By sub-s. (5) of this section v. "that in any case, where an appeal has been preferred from any The State of Assam decision of a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court but no complaint has been made under sub-s. (r), the power conferred on such Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court under the said sub-section may be exercised by the Appellate Court; and where the Appellate Court makes such complaint, the provisions of sub-s. (r) shall apply accordingly, but no such order shall be made, without· giving the person affected thereby an opportunity of being beard."
Held, that it is the duty of an Appellate Court acting under these sub·sections to record a finding that in its opinion intentionally false evidence had been given and that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and in the interests of justice it is expedient that there should be a prosecution for the offence and also to give the person against whom it is intended to proceed a hearing before making the complaint in respect of the offence.
Held, also, that in giving such hearing it is open to the Appellate Court to hold that no false evidence bad been given or that the evidence given \Vas not intentionally false not\vithstanding that the Court hearing the appeal had taken the view that intentionally false evidence had been given. An order directing a complaint to be filed, which is made on the view that the finding in the judgment in the appeal that intentionally false evidence had been given \Vas binding on the Court proceeding under these sub-sections and that it was not open to that Court to take a different vie~·. is a wrong order and cannot be sustained. The rinding required to be made by s. 479A(r) as to the truth of the evidence given or whether false evidence had been intentionally given js only of a prima facie nature; it is not a finding which has any force at the trial upon the complaint made pursuant to that finding and no question of the person prosecuted being prejudiced thereby, arises.
CRIMINALAPPEl,LA'l'E JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1959.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 19, 1959, of the Assam High Court, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2 of 1958.
II. J. U-mrigar and D. N. 111.'nkherjee, for the appel. lant.
N aunit .Lal, for the respondent.
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 947
'959
Dr. B. K. Pal Chaudhry
SARKAR J.-The appellant is a medical doctor and at the material time, he was the Civil Surgeon of D 1'b rugar h . H e was a w1 't ness m a • cnmma · • l case b · emg G. P. Case No. 654/54 i'n which three persons were charged inter alia under s. 376 of the Indian Penal Code with the offence of rape. The case was tried with the aid of a jury and resulted in a verdict of acquittal in respect of that charge. There was an appeal to the High Court of Assam against the acquittal which was allowed and two of the accused persons were convicted.
v. The Stale of Assam Sarkar J.
The offence was said to have been committed on a minor girl named Roheswari Chetia sometime in the afternoon of March 19, 1954. The same day at 6 p.m., sh~ was examined by Dr. Dhanbir Pait, the doctor in charge of Moran Dispensary, near which the offence was alleged to have been committed. It appears that the police produced her for another medical examination at the District town of Dibrugarh the next day and she was then examined by Dr. Mahibulla who was an assistant to the appellant, the Civil Surgeon. Thereafter, the police on March 21, 1954, produced the girl before the appellant for a further medical examination and she was examined by him on that date. With the reasons for these repeated medical examinations we are not concerned in this case.
Doctor Pait was called as prosecuti'on witness at the heari:ug of the case while the appellant and Dr. Mahibulla were called by the accused as defence witnesses. Dr. Pait in his evidence was clear that the girl had been raped. He said that he found two circular teeth marks on her cheeks and a reddish circular mark on her left breast. He also said that he found the hymen ruptured and gave other details in support of his opinion that the girl had been ravished. In his opinion, the hymen appeared to have been ruptured the same day that he examined the girl. Dr. Mahibulla's evidence was that the hymen was ruptured but the rupture had taken place nine or ten days before
I
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1))
z959 the incident and was not a recent one. The appellant in his evidence stated that the marks on the cheeks of D~:!au:1.,;• 1 the girl appeared to be insect bite and that hymen v. was not ruptured. He found no evidence of rape on 7 he State of Assam her person. There was thus direct contradiction - between the evidence of the doctor called by the pro- Sarkar f. secution and the doctors called by the defence, on the question of the rupture of the hymen.
As we have earlier stated, the High Court allowed the appeal against acquittal in the view that the commission of the offence.of rape had been established by the evidence of the doctor called by the prosecution and other evidence led by it. It is not necessary to refer for the purposes of this appeal to the other evidence produced. The appeal to the High Court was heard by Sarjoo Prosad, C. J., and Deka, J. After allowing the appeal and convicting the two accused, these learned Judges on the same day, passed an order in the terms set out below, directing the issue of a notice to the appellant.
31-7-1958. Issue notice on Dr. B. K. PalChaudhury (D. W. 2), Retired Civil Surgeon, Dibrugarh to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under s. 193 I.P.C. for giving false evidence in connection with G.P. Case No. 654/54, (Lakhimpur, Case No. 72 of 1955)-The State v. Maherulra Nath Barua and Others. The notice was thereafter duly issued and served on the appellant. Pursuant to the notice the appellant showed cause, but this time the matter was heard by Deka and Mahrotra, JJ. These learned Judges came to the conclusion that it was a fit case in which a complaint should be made against the appellant for an offence punishable under s. 193 of the Indian Penal Code and directed the Registrar of the High Court to lodge the complaint in the Court of the Deputy Comissioner, Lakhimpur. It is against this order directing the making of the complaint, that the present appeal was filed.
Sections 476 to 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with complaints to be made for the offence of giving false evidence as defined by s. 193 of the Indian Penal Code and for other offences mentioned
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 949
\ -
therein. Section 479A was introduced into the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955. Sub-section (6) of this section is in these terms :
z959
Drc:a~~,;ar v.
S. 479 A ( 6)-N o proceedings shall be taken under The State0 ! Assam - sections 476 to 479 inclusive for the prosecution of a person for giving or fabricating false evidence, if Sarkar f. in respect of such a person proceedings may be taken under this section.
Now, the present case was one in which the proceedings were directed to be taken for giving false evidence and the learned Advocates, appearing for the parties to this appeal, agreed that sub-sec. (6) of s. 4 79A makes ss. 476 to 479 inapplicable to it. In that view of the matter, we think it unnecessary to consider these sections.
Section 479A(l), so far as it is material to the present case, is in these terms :
" When any ... Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceedings ... and that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury ... and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been committed by him, the Court shall, at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reason therefor and may, if it so thinks fit, after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof." Sub-section (5) of this section runs as follows:
"In any case, where an appeal has been preferred from any decision of a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court but no complaint has been made under sub-section (1), the power conferred on such Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court under the said sub-section may be exercised by the Appellate Court ; and where the Appellate Court makes such complaint, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply accordingly, but no such order shall be made, without giving the
~~o
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)]
. i
'
z959 person affected thereby an opportunity of being heard."
Dr. P. K. Pal Cha,.dhry The appellant's contention is that the terms of this v. section were not complied with. We think that this Th4 State of A!sam contention is justified. The present case is governed by sub-sec.(5) of s. 479A for here the complaint was Sarkar]. not made by the trial Court but by the Appellate Court. Therefore, the terms of both snb-ss. (1) and (5) have to be complied with. The combined effect of these sub-sections is to require the court intending to make a complaint, to record a finding that in its opinion a person appearing as a witness has intentionally given false evidence and that for the eradication of the evils of perjury, and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness should be prosecuted for the offence and to give the witness proposed to be proceeded against, an opportunity of being heard as to whether a complaint should be made or not.
It. seems to us that none of these conditions of the section was observed by the High Court when it directed the complaint to be made. First there was no finding recorded by it that the appellant had intentionally given any false evidence or that it was expedient to proceed against him for the eradication of the evils of perjury and in the interests of justice. The order which directed the notice to issue-and that seems to be the only order in connection with the matter-does not record any such finding. Nor do we find in the judgment in the main appeal heard by the High Court in the case in which the appellant gave evidence, any such finding.
Secondly, it does not seem to us that the High Court gave the appellant a proper hearing to which he was clearly entitled under the terms of sub-sec. (5) of s. 479A. Deka, J., in the judgment that he delivered, directing the complaint to be made, contended himself by saying that the procedure laid down by s. 479A of the Criminal Procedure Code had been substantially followed except that in order to avoid prejudice to the appellant at the trial to follow the complaint, the reasons for supposing the witness to have perjured had not been ela,borately or specifically dealt with. It does
~-
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 951
•
I9$9
not seem to us that this is a satisfactory way of dealing with the question raised.
Dr. P. K. Pal Chaudhry v.
What Mehrotra, J., said, however, is, in our Chaudhry view, clearly erroneous. It appears to have been v. contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant TM s1a1e of Assam in the High Court that because the High Court had Sarkar]. preferred to accept the testimony of the other doctors, it could not necessarily be said that the evidence of the appellant was false or that he intentionally gave false evidence and it was open to the court on hearing the appellant to come to a different conclusion on these matters. Mehrotra, J., dealing with these contentions said "that these are matters which may be taken into consideration by the Court trying the case but cannot be considered by this Court at this stage. Any observation by this Court on merits is likely to prejudice the trial of the case." He observed that s. 479A was inserted with the object of avoiding further inqui.r;y which inquiry was required by s. 476. There are two further observations made by this learned Judge which are of great materiality in the present appeal and we set them out below :
"The witness is in effect challenging the correctness of the findings of the Bench hearing an appeal that he intentionally made a false evidence. It is not open to .this Bench to upset this finding."
" To my mind it is not open to the other Bench to record a finding different from the Bench hearing the appeal on the question of the witness intentionally giving a false evidence."
It is obvious from these observations of Mehrotra, J., that he considered himself bound by the findings of the Bench hearing the appeal that the appellant had intentionally given false evidence. We have earlier stated that the Bench hearing the appeal expressed no such finding. However that may be, it seems clear to us that the statute by providing in sub-sec. (5) of s. 479A, which is the provision governing this case, that no order directing a complaint shall be lodged without giving the person affected thereby an opportunity of being heard, intended that after giving
952
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1))
I959 that hearing it would be open to the Court to decide D'(;,:,,:,;,;01 not no sense in directing to make a complaint. Otherwise that a hearing should be given. there would be v. Now, the Court may, after giving that hearing, decide The State of Assam not to make a complaint either for the reason that the Court was satisfied that no false evidence was Sarkar j. given by the witness concerned or that such evidence was not intentionally false, or lastly, that it was not expedient in the interests of justice or to eradicate the evils of perjury, to make the complaint. By stating that it was not open to him "to upset" the finding of the Bench hearing the appeal that false evidence had been intentionally given, Mehrotra, J., really did not give any hearing to the appellant as the sub-section required him to do. He thought that the course adopted by him would be in the best interests of the appellant as it would prevent his case from being prejudiced at the trial upon the complaint. We consider that the ground of prejudice is more fancied than real. The finding required to be made by s. 4 79 A ( 1) is only of a prim a f acie nature ; it cannot be a finding which would have any force at the trial upon the complaint made pursuant to that finding. Further, this notion of avoiding prejudice wonk! not justify a clear breach of the terms of the section.
The order of the High Court cannot be supported even if it is assumed that Deka, J., took a correct view of the matter, for, the other learned Judge clearly took a wrong view and it cannot be said what the decision would have been if he had approached the matter from the correct point of view. We are therefore satisfied that the order appealed against had been made in breach of the express provisions of sub. secs. (1) and (5) of s. 479A, and cannot be allowed to stand.
It was suggested by the learned Advocate for the respondent., the State of Assam, that we might go into the evidence and make a complaint ourselves. We do not consider it fit to take this course even if it be open to us, as to which we say nothing, for we find it impossible to do so without going into the entire case and all the evidence led, and these are not before us.
'
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 953
It was then said that we should remand the case z959 ,. back to the High Court for giving proper hearing to the appellant, but we do not think that we should Drcu:n:'" make that order either. All that has happened is v. that the High Court has made the order in breach of The s1at1 of Assam the section and what we are called upon to do is.to set aside that order. What further action can be taken in Sarkar J. accordance with law is for the High Court to decide.
The result, therefore, is that this order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is consequently allowed.
Appeal allowed.
SHUBNATH DEOGRAM
v.
1959
October 8
RAM NARAIN PRASAD AND OTHERS
(S. K. DAS, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.)
Election Petition-Corrupt practice-Appeal to vote on grounds of religion-Leaflet issued by party-Construction of-Representation of the People Act, I95I (43 of I95I), s. Iz3(3).
The appellant, a candidate set up by the Jharkhand Party, was declared elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from the Manoharpur constit~ency in the district of Singbhum. He was an Adibasi belonging to 'Ho' community, and the constituency also consisted of electors belonging largely to' the Adibasi communities of Hos, Mundas and Oraons. The symbol chosen by the party and allotted by the Election Commission to it was a cock. The cock was not a religious symbol of the Adibasis but it formed an integral part of the religious ceremonies which they performed while worshipping some of their important deities .. Cocks were often offered as sarcifices to the deities. The Jharkhand Party issued a1leaflet containing an appeal for votes and the appellant and his agents distributed the leaflet among the electorate and made speeches in its terms. The leaflet. was in verse wherein the appeal for votes was made by a cock; the relevant portion was as follows :
" Respected sons of men open your eyes, lend your ears Recognise me and my crow. In your services and worships In the Worship of your forest God (Buru) In Stomach pain and headache At the time· of your distress and miseries
-(
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 479A(1) and (5) CrPC before directing a complaint for false evidence¶55
The finding required by Section 479A(1) is only of a prima facie nature and does not bind the trial court at the subsequent prosecution; therefore, the fear of prejudice to the witness at trial does not justify bypassing the statutory hearing.ratio¶70
Whether the finding under Section 479A(1) that a witness intentionally gave false evidence is binding on the court making the complaint¶21
The High Court did not give the appellant a proper hearing as required by Section 479A(5); the bench that heard the show-cause considered itself bound by the earlier bench's finding and did not independently evaluate whether false evidence was given.ratio¶67
Whether the appellate court must give the witness a proper hearing before directing a complaint under Section 479A(5)¶55
5 provisions across 2 enactments
How this case reached the court
Order of the Assam High Court directing the Registrar to lodge a complaint against the appellant under Section 193 IPC for giving false evidence¶23
Assam High Court · 1959-03-19
Trial court (G.P. Case No. 654/54) acquitted three accused of rape; High Court allowed appeal and convicted two accused¶30
High Court issued notice to appellant to show cause why he should not be prosecuted under Section 193 IPC for false evidence¶38
A different bench of the High Court heard the show-cause and directed the Registrar to lodge the complaint¶38
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
