M. Somaiah vs State of A.P.

Radhakrishna Rao, J.—The petitioner faced the trial before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for an offence u/s 193 IPC. The principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases forwarded a complaint alleging that the petitioner gave false evidence before the Court and thereby he is guilty of the offence u/s 193 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner gave a report to the Director, ACB, Hyderabad, against the Sanitary Inspector of Warangal Municipality, alleging that he demanded illegal gratification from him. A case was registered on the complaint given by the petitioner and the said Sanitary Inspector was trapped with the assistance of the petitioner herein, on 4-3-84. On 8-2-84 the petitioner also gave a statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate which is marked as Ex.P-1. During the trial of that case in CC.9/ 87 filed against the Sanitary Inspector, the petitioner-accused was examined as P.W.1. In his deposition as P.W.1 he rescinded from his complaint and his statement and stated that he tried to put the amount in the pocket of the Sanitary Inspector. So while pronouncing the judgment the learned Special Judge observed that the petitioner who was examined as P.W.1 has given a totally variant version and so a complaint need to be filed u/s 193 IPC. Since he gave a go-bye to the complaint that has been given by him, the learned Special Judge gave acquittal to the person concerned. The two lower courts found that a case has been made out against the petitioner herein as he gave different versions which ultimately resulted in the acquittal of the accused in that trap case. So he was convicted u/s 193 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of 6 months.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the explanation given by the petitioner-accused that he gave a complaint at the instance of a stranger and that he gave the 164 statement at the instance of the police ought to have been considered while arriving at a conclusion whether he gave a false statement or not. The fact of giving a complaint and also recording the 164 statement on oath by the competent Magistrate and the fact that he rescinded from those versions during the trial of the case is not in dispute. The learned Special Judge has made an observation as follows:

"P.W.1 has given a totally variant version before the Magistrate, and the other circumstances of the case I am of the view that a complaint need to be made for his prosecution u/s 193 IPC".

It is not necessary for the court to reproduce the exact words mentioned u/s 193 Cr.P.C. What is important is the approach arid the finding of the court. The court after perusing the complaint that has been given by him and the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C and the hostile attitude exhibited by the petitioner, found that it is a fit case of lodging a complaint for his prosecution u/s 193 IPC. In the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, only three witnesses were examined, P.W.1 is the Bench clerk where the 164 statement of the appellant was recorded. P.W.2 is a Translator of the Court the Special Judge, SPE and ACB cases where the deposition of the petitioner was recorded as P.W.1 in CC No. 9/87. P.W.3 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Ex.P-1 is the statement of the appellant recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate. Ex.P-2 is the deposition of the petitioner as P.W.1 in CC No. 9/87 and Ex.P-3 is the original complaint given by the petitioner. In pursuance of the complaint a trap was laid and his statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate reveals about the giving of the complaint and about the laying of the trap etc. But in his deposition which is marked as Ex.P-2 he rescinded from his earlier statements and gave a totally different version. It cannot be said that the version which he gave before the learned Special Judge alone is correct and the other two statements are wrong. In Public Prosecutor Vs. Nagalinga Reddy, it was held by this Court that the accused might explain that he has given first statement under police pressure and that he stated true in his later statement, but it has no relevaney in adjudicating the question whether such a consideration may have bearing on the question of sentence but not on the question of guilt.

In Hary v. State AIR 1955 Ajm 37 it was observed that Hari gave a statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. A similar statement was also made by him before the committing Magistrate but a contradictory statement was made before the court of Sessions and it was not possible to reconcile from two sets of statements. There was clear conflict between the two sets of statements and atleast one of the three statements must have been made by him knowing that it was false statement. By the above observations, Hari who was a witness in a Sessions Case was convicted for the offence of perjury.

In this case also there are three sets of statements and atleast one of the statements is made by him knowing that it was a false statement. Since the petitioner is the person who has set the criminal law in motion, he is executed to be aware that the statement that has been given by him before the police can be utilised during the course of the trial against the accused. The statement that has been given by him on oath before the Magistrate also can be expected to have knowledge that it is being used in a competent court. It cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the consequence of making those statements. Either the original version must be false or the later version i.e. the subsequent deposition in Ex.P-2 must be false. So no interference is called for in this revision and the same is dismissed. In serious matters like this the court also must be very firm and so the sentence also is not on the high side.