Athi Ambalagaran, In Re.

Crl. Appeal No. 570 of 1931 is an appeal by seven persons against an order of the Sessions Judge, West Tanjore, directing their prosecution for perjury. They were to be prosecuted for having made contradictory statements before himself and before the committing Magistrate. As a measure of precaution the committing Magistrate also directed their prosecution. Seven appeals were presented against his order to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pattukottai, and they have been called up to this Court for consideration with the other appeal.

The main contention is that both of the Courts have acted without jurisdiction. No Court, it is argued, can direct a prosecution for perjury committed in another Court. In other words, such a prosecuting as this—for making contradictory statements—can be ordered only when the statements have been made in the same Court or by a Court to which appeals lie from both of the Courts in which the contradictory statements were made. It follows that in a case like this, which is precisely the case stated in the illustration to Sect. 236, Criminal Procedure Code, although the law contemplates the possibility of a prosecution, a prosecution is impossible; for the statements have been made in different Courts and appeals from these Courts lie not to one and the same Court, but to two different Courts.

The question has arisen before and been answered in different ways. It arose in Rami Reddi… v. Public Prosecutor Of Kurnool…. and the answer was apparently that each of the Courts should sanction, which negatives part of Dr. John's contention. The statements in question were made one before a Sub-Magistrate under Sect. 164, Criminal Procedure Code and the other in the Sessions Court. In Narayanan Nadan v. Palaniappa Nadan a case exactly parallel to this, it was held that the Sessions Judge could grant sanction in regard to both statements the one made to the Committing Magistrate having been “brought to the notice of the Sessions Court in relation to proceedings” before it. In In re Marwadi Ganesh Mull (3) Jackson, J., followed this last decision, but added the observation that by way of superabundant caution in such cases it would be well to have complaints from both Courts. In another judgment, delivered on the same day, he went further and said that the committing Magistrate also “must complain.” And in another unreported case Lakshmana Rao J., followed the decision in Narayanan Nadan v. Palaniappa Nadan .

On account of these somewhat conflicting pronouncements, the appeals were sent to us in order that the question might be settled by a Bench. Our answer must be that it was correctly decided in Narayanan Nadan v. Palaniappa Nadan . Sect. 476, Criminal Procedure Code, is framed in very wide terms and allows a Court to direct an enquiry to be made into certain offences, including perjury, which appear to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court. The wording seems to us to cover exactly a case like this. The perjury was committed either in the Sessions Court or at the preliminary enquiry which preceded and led up to the trial in the Sessions Court. We find it impossible to say that a statement made by a witness at the preliminary enquiry has not been made in relation to the subsequent proceedings in the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge had therefore jurisdiction to direct the prosecution of the appellants before us for contradictory statements made before himself and before the Committing Magistrate. We do not agree with Jackson J., that it was either advisable or necessary for the Committing Magistrate to direct their prosecution also. The appellants' first objection therefore fails and we must hear Dr. John on the merits.

These appeals coming on for hearing on the merits Waller, J., delivered the following

JUDGMENT

The first objection taken, on the merits, is that the Sessions Judge found in the course of the judgment, that the story told at the preliminary enquiry was untrue. That is not how we understand the judgment. The next objection is more substantial; it is that the contradictory statements have not been sufficiently specified in the complaints. That seems to us to be correct. It should not be left to a Magistrate to endeavour to ascertain what is being complained about. We must, therefore, direct the withdrawal of the complaints made by the Sessions Judge and also those made by the Magistrate which latter were superfluous.

As at present advised we can see no obstacle to the Sessions Judge passing fresh proceedings and directing fresh complaints to be made, if he thinks it worth while to do so.

N. R. R.Order set aside.