Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal revision in the Madras High Court concerning the maintainability of a perjury complaint under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The second petitioner had lodged a police complaint on 12-10-1963 alleging that the respondent and others had formed an unlawful assembly and committed offences of house trespass, mischief and causing hurt. The police did not file a charge-sheet against the respondent but filed a charge-sheet against four other persons under Sections 323, 325 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code in C.C. No. 3097/1963 before the Sub-Magistrate, Salem. The trial ended in acquittal of all accused on 13-12-1963. During the trial, the first petitioner was examined as P.W. 1 and the second petitioner as P.W. 2, and they allegedly gave false evidence that the respondent was among the trespassers and assailants and was armed with a gun which another accused took from him. After the conclusion of the trial, the respondent filed a petition under Section 476(1) CrPC on 23-12-1963 alleging that on 11-10-1962 he had attended a Board of Directors meeting of Chembra Peak Estate Ltd. in Bangalore and was not at Yercaud on 11-10-1963. He produced a copy of the Draft Minutes and cited witnesses. The Sub-Magistrate, Salem, after considering the matter, held that the respondent could not have been present at the alleged occurrence and that P.W.s 1 and 2 deliberately committed perjury. Accordingly, the Sub-Magistrate filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 193 IPC before the District Magistrate (Judicial), Salem. The petitioners contended that the complaint was not maintainable because the trying Magistrate had not followed the procedure under Section 479-A CrPC and therefore recourse to Section 476 CrPC was barred. The District Magistrate discharged the petitioners on 10-02-1964 relying on Shabir Hussein Bholu v. State of Maharashtra. The respondent filed Criminal R.C. No. 1261 of 1964 in the Madras High Court, which by order dated 09-12-1965 set aside the discharge and directed the trial to proceed. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was the true meaning and scope of Section 476 CrPC in the context of Section 479-A(1) and (6) regarding prosecution for perjury committed before a court in the course of trial. The appellants argued that the bar under Section 479-A(6) precluded prosecution under Section 476 because the Magistrate had not acted under Section 479-A at the time of judgment. The respondent contended that the bar applied only when proceedings could have been taken under Section 479-A(1), which was impossible because the material revealing perjury was produced only after the judgment. The Supreme Court examined Chapter XXXV CrPC, particularly Sections 476, 476-A, 476-B, 478, 479 and 479-A. It held that Section 479-A prescribes a special procedure requiring the court to form an opinion about false evidence at the time of delivering judgment. In the present case, the material showing false evidence was produced on 23-12-1963, after the trial concluded, so the Magistrate could not have formed such an opinion. Therefore, Section 479-A(1) was inapplicable, and consequently the bar under Section 479-A(6) did not operate. The Court distinguished Shabir Hussein Bholu, approved C.P. Kasi Thevar v. Chinniah Konar and In re Gnanamuthu, and disapproved Jai Bir Singh v. Malkhan Singh, Parsotam Lal Vir Bhan v. Madan Lal Bashambar Das and Amolak v. State. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order, holding that the complaint under Section 476 CrPC was legally valid and not barred by Section 479-A(6).
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Perjury Prosecution - Sections 476, 479-A Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - Bar under Section 479-A(6) inapplicable when false evidence detected after trial through new material - The trial court acquitted the accused and the respondent subsequently moved under Section 476 CrPC producing evidence not available at the time of judgment; the Magistrate could not have formed an opinion of false evidence at judgment, so Section 479-A(1) was inapplicable; hence Clause (6) bar did not apply and Section 476 was validly invoked. Held that the bar under Section 479-A(6) applies only where proceedings may be taken under Section 479-A(1) and not where subsequent material reveals perjury (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complaint for perjury under Section 476 CrPC is maintainable when the trial court did not follow the special procedure under Section 479-A CrPC because the falsity of evidence became apparent only after the conclusion of the trial.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Madras High Court's order setting aside the discharge, holding that the complaint filed under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 against the appellants for offences under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code was maintainable. The Court held that Section 479-A(1) could not have been invoked because the falsity of the evidence became apparent only after the trial concluded and new material was produced, and therefore the bar under Section 479-A(6) did not apply.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 479-A CrPC applies only when court can form opinion at time of judgment
- bar under Section 479-A(6) limited to cases where action possible under Section 479-A(1)
- Section 476 CrPC remains available when perjury detected after trial through new material
- prosecution for perjury after conclusion of trial valid
