Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a panchayat election in which Chajoo Ram was elected Sarpanch of Nyaya Panchayat Risia Bazar, Tehsil Nanpora, District Bharaic on October 29, 1956. Radhey Shyam, the defeated candidate, filed an election petition which was dismissed on June 3, 1958. During the election petition, an injunction restrained Chajoo Ram from functioning as Sarpanch from December 3, 1956 to December 10, 1957. After dismissal, Chajoo Ram resumed functioning. Radhey Shyam and others made complaints to the District Magistrate alleging irregularities, but no action was taken. Radhey Shyam then filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 89 of 1960) in the Allahabad High Court seeking a mandamus to direct inquiries. The writ petition was allowed on September 4, 1961, and an inquiry was directed. In the course of the writ proceedings, Chajoo Ram filed an affidavit dated July 6, 1960, stating in paragraph 10 that he had not acted as Sarpanch till December 7, 1957, when charge was given to him by Chhotey Lal, Sahayak Sarpanch. Radhey Shyam alleged this statement was false and moved an application under Section 476 CrPC before the District Magistrate for prosecution under Sections 193, 181 and 182 IPC. The District Magistrate found no case of false affidavit; appeals to Sessions Court and revision to High Court were dismissed. Later, during the same writ proceedings, Radhey Shyam again moved the High Court under Section 476 CrPC for prosecution. A single Judge of the High Court by order dated January 27, 1964 directed a complaint against Chajoo Ram for the false statement in paragraph 10 of the affidavit. A Division Bench of the High Court affirmed, holding that Section 479-A CrPC did not bar proceedings under Section 476 because filing an affidavit did not amount to appearing as a witness. The Supreme Court considered two main issues: whether Section 479-A barred Section 476 proceedings for a person filing an affidavit, and whether the High Court was justified in directing prosecution. On the first issue, the Court held that Section 479-A applies only to witnesses who have appeared before court; a person filing an affidavit is not a witness, so Section 479-A did not bar Section 476. On the second issue, the Court held that prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned only when perjury appears deliberate and conscious, conviction is reasonably probable, and it is expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent. Mere inaccuracy or innocent immaterial misstatement is insufficient. The Court found the material on record not adequately sufficient to justify filing a complaint. The High Court did not give due weight to the fact that Chajoo Ram was a Panch authorised to act, his explanation was not implausible, the prior inquiry found only irregularities and no abuse, and there was a long lapse of over 10 years since the affidavit filing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order directing filing of complaint.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Perjury Prosecution - Scope of Section 479-A and Section 476 CrPC 1898 - Filing Affidavit Not Appearance as Witness - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 476, 479-A - The appellant filed affidavits in writ proceedings stating he had not acted as Sarpanch; respondent sought prosecution under Section 476 for false affidavit. The High Court held Section 479-A inapplicable because filing affidavit did not amount to appearing as witness. Supreme Court affirmed that Section 479-A only applies to witnesses appearing before court; since appellant did not appear as witness, Section 476 proceedings not barred. Held that Section 479-A(6) bars proceedings under Sections 476-479 only for persons who could be proceeded against under Section 479-A, i.e., witnesses; filing affidavit does not constitute appearing as witness (Paras 1-5). B) Criminal Law - Perjury - Conditions for Sanctioning Prosecution - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 476 - Perjury prosecution must be ordered only when falsehood is deliberate and conscious, conviction reasonably probable, and prosecution expedient in interests of justice; mere inaccuracy or innocent misstatement insufficient. In present case, material not adequate; appellant's explanation as Panch authorized to act was plausible; prior inquiry found no abuse; over 10 years delay since affidavit; High Court failed to give due weight to these factors. Held appeal allowed, order directing complaint set aside (Paras 6-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a person filing a false affidavit can be prosecuted under Section 476 CrPC despite Section 479-A CrPC; and whether the High Court was justified in directing filing of complaint for perjury.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order directing filing of complaint, and held that Section 479-A did not bar Section 476 proceedings but that on merits the material was insufficient and prosecution not expedient.
Law Points
- Section 476 CrPC 1898 scope
- Section 479-A CrPC 1898 bars proceedings under Sections 476-479 only for witnesses
- filing affidavit does not amount to appearing as witness
- perjury prosecution only when deliberate and conscious falsehood with reasonable probability of conviction and expedient in interests of justice
- mere inaccuracy insufficient
- long delay relevant
- prior inquiry report relevant
