- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
In Re: Ponneri Dasi Reddi v. Unknown
Factual and Procedural Background
This revision petition challenges a complaint filed against the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Chittoor, under Section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Criminal P.C.) for an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint arose from allegations that the petitioner, who had initially stated under oath in his Section 164 Criminal P.C. statement that he saw Govindu running out of a hut where the wife of one Chinnabba was found dead with stab injuries, later recanted this testimony during the Sessions trial, thereby allegedly giving false evidence. The Sessions trial concluded with the acquittal of the accused on 27-9-1957. Prior to the judgment, the Inspector of Police had filed a petition under Section 479-A Criminal P.C. seeking prosecution for perjury, which was pending at the time of judgment. Subsequently, on 11-10-1957, the Sessions Judge recorded a finding that prosecution for perjury was expedient and forwarded a complaint dated 18-10-1957 to the Magistrate. The petitioner challenged this complaint on the ground that the Sessions Judge failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 479-A Criminal P.C.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Sessions Judge erred in failing to record the mandatory finding with reasons at the time of delivering the judgment, as required under Section 479-A, Criminal P.C., before initiating prosecution for perjury.
- Whether the complaint filed under Section 479-A, Criminal P.C. for an offence under Section 193, IPC, was valid given the procedural non-compliance by the Sessions Judge.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the procedural requirements under Section 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates that a finding with reasons must be recorded by the Sessions Judge at the time of delivering the judgment or final order disposing of the proceeding. This finding must establish that the witness intentionally gave false evidence and that prosecution for perjury is expedient in the interests of justice. The court found that in this case, the Sessions Judge failed to comply with this mandatory requirement by recording the finding only on 11-10-1957, after the judgment was pronounced on 27-9-1957. The court emphasized that such a finding is a condition precedent to the laying of a complaint. Since this procedural step was not properly followed, the complaint was held to be invalid and liable to be quashed, despite the regrettable nature of the outcome. The court underscored the necessity of adhering strictly to statutory mandates to uphold the rule of law.
Holding and Implications
The revision petition is allowed and the complaint lodged against the petitioner is directed to be withdrawn.
The direct effect of this decision is the quashing of the complaint for perjury against the petitioner due to procedural non-compliance by the Sessions Judge. The opinion does not establish any new precedent but reinforces the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 479-A, Criminal P.C., emphasizing that failure to observe these safeguards invalidates prosecution for perjury.
1. This revision petition is directed against a complaint filed against the petitioner by the Sessions Judge, Chittoor, under Section 479-A, Criminal P. C, for an offence under Section 193, IPC The allegation against the petitioner was that, having stated on oath in his statement under Section 164, Criminal P. C, that he had seen Govindu (the accused in the Sessions Case) running out of the hut where he (the petitioner) found the wife of one Chinnabba lying dead with stab injuries, at the Sessions trial, giving evidence as P.W. 8, he had resiled from that statement and had sworn that he had not seen any one running out of the hut. P. W 8 was the mainstay of the prosecution in that case.
2. The judgment in the Sessions Case was pronounced on 27-9-1957 and the accused therein was acquitted.
3. It would appear that even on 11-9-1957 the Inspector of Police, Puttur, had filed a petition under Section 479-A, Criminal P. C, requesting the Sessions Judge to file a complaint for perjury against the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge, however, while pronouncing judgment in the Sessions Case, contented himself by saying in the last paragraph of his judgment
"that the proceeding (the petition filed by the Inspector) is pending, having been adjourned to another date at the request of the Public Prosecutor."
4. Some time later on 11-10-1957, the Sessions Judge recorded a finding that it was expedient in the interests of justice that the petitioner should be prosecuted for perjury. Having recorded that finding, the learned Judge gave an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and drew up a complaint on 18-10-1957, under Section 479-A, Criminal P. C, for an offence under Section 193, IPC for intentionally giving false evidence in a stage of the judicial proceeding, and thereafter forwarded the complaint to the 1st Class Magistrate, Chandragiri.
5. The learned Sessions Judge has overlooked the mandatory provisions of Section 479-A, Criminal P. C, in failing to record a finding with reasons therefor at the time of the delivery of the judgment in the Sessions Case to the effect that the witness had intentionally given false evidence in a stage of the judicial proceeding and that in the interests of justice it was expedient that the witness should be prosecuted for perjury.
The section enjoins that such a finding should be recorded at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, although a formal complaint could be made subsequently after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard. In this case, the finding as required by the Section was recorded on 11-10-1957 although the judgment in the Sessions Case was pronounced on 27-9-1957.
Such a course is opposed to the express terms of Section 479-A, Criminal P.C. The recording of a finding in the manner prescribed by the Section is a condition precedent to the laying of a complaint. It follows that the complaint filed in this case is one not made in accordance with law and has to be quashed. A result such as this is regrettable but is inevitable if the mandatory provisions of the statute are disregarded by the courts below.
6. The revision petition is allowed and the complaint lodged against the petitioner is directed to be withdrawn.
Alert