Balwant Singh vs Rajinder Singh and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.—Dhano (since deceased and represented by her sons Rajinder Singh and Rana Jang Bahadur Singh -Respondents) filed suit

against Raghbir Singh etc. The said suit was dismissed by trial court vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.1996. First appeal filed by Dhano

against the said judgment and decree was pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Rupnagar. In the said first appeal, Balwant Singh

Appellant herein appeared as DW3 on behalf of Raghbir Singh etc. Respondents/Defendants and made statement on oath on 7.12.2000 (copy Ex.

A/1). The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.2001.

Dhano moved application on 28.5.2001 u/s 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Code of Criminal Procedure) against Balwant

Singh for lodging complaint against him for making false statement on oath in the witness box. The said application has been allowed by learned

Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide impugned order dated 21.4.2006 and accordingly criminal complaint has been made by learned

Additional District Judge, Rupnagar against the Appellant herein for offence u/s 193 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Balwant Singh has filed the instant

criminal appeal assailing order dated 21.4.2006 of learned Additional District Judge whereby application filed by Dhano u/s 340 Code of Criminal

Procedure has been allowed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

The Appellant stated in cross-examination in impugned statement Ex. A/1 that he did not know Daulat Singh son of Dasondhi. The witness also

added that he did not know if Daulat Singh had been Sarpanch of his village. The witness also stated that it was wrong to suggest that he had filed

a suit against Daulat Singh and Anokh Singh and that Raghbir Singh had appeared as witness on his (Balwant Singh''s) behalf in that suit. These are

said to be the offending parts of his statement which were false to the knowledge of Balwant Singh. Dhano alleged in her application u/s 340 Code

of Criminal Procedure that Balwant Singh had filed election petition assailing the election of Daulat Singh as Sarpanch and had also filed appeal

against order passed in that election petition, but in spite thereof, Balwant Singh as witness stated that he did not know Daulat Singh and also did

not know if Daulat Singh had been Sarpanch of the village and thus, false statement in this regard was made. It was also alleged that Balwant Singh

had filed suit against Daulat Singh and Anokh Singh and in that suit, Raghbir Singh Defendant-Respondent No. 1 in the lis, out of which this appeal

has arisen, had appeared as witness for Balwant Singh, but Balwant Singh in the witness box denied as wrong the suggestions to this effect and

thus, made false statement in this regard as well. Balwant Singh had even filed appeal in the said suit in which Raghbir Singh had appeared as

witness.

Dhano has led documentary evidence to establish that the aforesaid parts of statement Ex. A1 made by Balwant Singh were patently false.

There is order dated 14.12.1994 Ex. A2 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate thereby dismissing election petition filed by Balwant Singh Appellant

herein challenging the election of aforesaid Daulat Singh son of Dasondhi as Sarpanch of the village. There is also order dated 3.6.1996 Ex. A3

passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate thereby dismissing another election petition filed by Balwant Singh Appellant herein challenging election of

Daulat Singh as Sarpanch of the village. Balwant Singh also filed appeal against said order dated 3.6.1996 which was dismissed by learned

Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide judgment dated 28.2.1997 Ex. A4. There is also copy of judgment and decree dated 24.5.1990 Ex. A5

and Ex. A6 thereby dismissing civil suit filed by Balwant Singh Appellant herein and his brother Sarup Singh against Daulat Singh and two others.

Dhano has also produced copy of judgment dated 12.10.1993 Ex. A9 whereby appeal preferred by Balwant Singh and Sarup Singh against

aforesaid judgment and decree dated 24.5.1990 was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge. Copy of statement made by Raghbir Singh

aforesaid in the aforesaid suit of Balwant Singh and Sarup Singh as their witness has also been produced as Ex. A7. From all this documentary

evidence, it becomes manifest that Balwant Singh filed two election petitions challenging election of Daulat Singh as Sarpanch and also filed appeal

in one election petition. Balwant Singh along with his brother Sarup Singh also filed suit against Daulat Singh and Ors. and also filed appeal in that

suit. Thus, Balwant Singh very well knew Daulat Singh, but in spite thereof, in the witness box, Balwant Singh had the cheeks to state falsely in

statement Ex. A1 that he did not know Daulat Singh and also did not know if Daulat Singh was Sarpanch of the village. Similarly, it is manifest

from the documentary evidence that Balwant Singh along with his brother Sarup Singh had filed civil suit against Daulat Singh and Ors. and had

also filed appeal in that suit, but in statement Ex. A1 in the witness box, Balwant Singh denied this fact also. In that suit, Raghbir Singh appeared as

witness for Balwant Singh and his brother but Balwant Singh in his statement Ex. A1 denied this fact also. Thus, all these parts of statement Ex. A1

of Balwant Singh are patently false.

In fact Balwant Singh while appearing as witness in present application u/s 340 Code of Criminal Procedure practically admitted all the

aforesaid parts of his statement Ex. A1 to be false. Balwant Singh admitted having made statement Ex. A1 in the aforesaid appeal. Balwant Singh

admitted that Daulat Singh was known to him and he (Daulat Singh) was Sarpanch of the village. Balwant Singh also admitted that he had filed

election petition against Daulat Singh. Thus, from the documentary evidence and own statement of Balwant Singh, it becomes manifest that

Balwant Singh made false statements while appearing as witness vide his statement Ex. A1. In these circumstances, it could not be seriously

disputed even by senior counsel for the Appellant that aforesaid parts of the statement Ex. A1 made by Balwant Singh in the witness box were

false.

Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned senior counsel for the Appellant contended that alleged false parts of statement Ex. A1 of Balwant

Singh did not touch merits of the suit and statement made by Balwant Singh was not even referred to by the appellate court while deciding the

appeal in which said statement Annexure A1 was made and therefore, complaint u/s 340 Indian Penal Code, 1860 should not be made. Reliance

has been placed on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chajoo Ram Vs. Radhey Shyam and Another, , wherein it was observed that before

sanctioning prosecution for perjury, Court must be satisfied that there is prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and that

there is reasonable foundation for the charge.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but the same cannot be accepted. It cannot be said that false parts of the statement Ex. A1

made by Balwant Singh Appellant did not touch merits of the suit. By making those false statements, Balwant Singh tried to save himself to be

labelled as partisan witness. By making those false statements, Balwant Singh wanted to display himself as an independent witness, falsely stating

that he did not know Daulat Singh. Daulat Singh was brother of husband of Dhano Appellant. Thus, Balwant Singh by making the statement

regarding this fact wanted to depict that he had No. enmity with the family of Dhano Appellant of the said appeal. Similarly Raghbir Singh had

appeared as witness for Balwant Singh and his brother Sarup Singh in suit filed by them. In the civil appeal in which Balwant Singh made statement

Ex. A1, Raghbir Singh was Defendant-Respondent No. 1. Thus, Balwant Singh was repaying the obligation of Raghbir Singh by appearing as his

witness in the aforesaid appeal, but by making false statement regarding suit filed by Balwant Singh and his brother and regarding appearance of

Raghbir Singh as witness in that suit for them, Balwant Singh wanted to avoid the charge that he was appearing as witness in the aforesaid appeal

to repay the obligation of Raghbir Singh. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that the false statements made by Balwant Singh in his

statement Ex. A1 were not of any substance or did not touch the merits of the case.

In the aforesaid context, it would not be out of place to notice with significance that Balwant Singh stated in statement Ex. A1 that he was

Member of Planning Board as well as Member Panchayat and retired Headmaster. Thus, he was highly educated person of high status and he also

had experience of litigation having filed two election petitions and an appeal to challenge the election of Daulat Singh as Sarpanch and also having

filed civil suit and appeal against Daulat Singh etc. In these circumstances, false statements made by Balwant Singh cannot be ignored as trifles or

trivials.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant also contended that long time has lapsed since the aforesaid statement Ex. A1 was made on 7.12.2000 and

therefore, the matter is stale and complaint u/s 340 Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made. It was pointed out that the impugned order is

dated 21.4.2006 i.e. made more than five years after statement Ex. A1 was made. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme

Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Ameer Hasan, . However, text of the judgment has not been reported in the aforesaid

Journal and there is only head note. Be that as it may, the aforesaid contention also cannot be accepted. Statement Ex. A1 is dated 7.12.2000.

Appeal in which the said statement was made was decided on 2.2.2001. Dhano moved application u/s 340 Code of Criminal Procedure on

28.5.2001 i.e. without any delay. However, there has been delay in deciding the said application because Balwant Singh himself took more than

two years in leading his evidence. Some delay also took place because Balwant Singh took long time in filing reply to the application. Some delay

also took place on account of the Presiding Officer of the Court. However, there was No. delay on the part of Dhano herself. Complaint u/s 340

Code of Criminal Procedure has already been launched pursuant to order dated 21.4.2006, although proceedings therein have been stayed by

interim order passed in the present appeal. The matter cannot be said to have become stale when application u/s 340 Code of Criminal Procedure

was moved as the same was moved without delay. Appellant cannot take advantage of the delay caused by himself in decision of the said

application. Further delay has been on account of pendency of the present appeal. In these circumstances, No. benefit of delay can be given to the

Appellant. Case of K.N.Mishra (supra) is completely distinguishable on facts because in that case, application u/s 340 Code of Criminal

Procedure was itself moved two years after the suit, in which alleged false statement was made, was decreed. In the instant case, however,

application u/s 340 Code of Criminal Procedure was moved just a little over three months after the decision of the appeal in which false statement

was made. Moreover, in the case of K.N.Mishra (supra), application u/s 340 Code of Criminal Procedure came up for evidence after five years

and on that date, it was dismissed for default. Then application for restoration was moved and was allowed. Then revision was filed in High Court

and thereafter there was appeal in Hon''ble Supreme Court. In the instant case, there has been No. such delay or lapse on the part of original

applicant Dhano. So, this judgment is completely distinguishable on facts.

It may be added that learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order has observed that launching of prosecution against Appellant

Balwant Singh is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice. Balwant Singh inspite of being educated and person of high status and having

experience in litigation also, intentionally made false statement in the witness box. This tendency of litigants and witnesses to state falsehood on oath

with impunity hoping that for one reason or the other, they would escape the net of perjury, has to be curbed and discouraged. If the instant appeal

is allowed, it will embolden persons like the Appellant to state falsehood in the Courts. Even persons sitting on the fence or potential witnesses

would get emboldened to make false statements on oath. Such false statements tend to pollute the system of administration of justice. It has to be

curbed.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that there is No. infirmity in the impugned order of learned Additional District Judge. Application u/s 340

Code of Criminal Procedure has been rightly allowed as prosecution of the Appellant herein is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice.

As a necessary upshot, it is concluded that there is No. merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed.