P.H. Janardhan vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P. Lakshmana Reddy, J.—This Criminal Petition is filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 607 of 2000 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows:

The present petitioner-accused was a witness in S.C. No. 62 of 1993 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The said case ended in conviction against which criminal appeal was filed before this Court and this Court while dismissing the appeal, gave direction to the police to file charge sheet against the present petitioner-accused who was examined as PW-1 in that case for the offences punishable under Sections 191 and 193 I.P.C.

The police on such direction filed charge sheet against the petitioner- accused before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 191 and 193 I.P.C. and issued process to the accused.

Aggrieved by the same, the present petitioner-accused filed this petition contending that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences as there is a bar u/s 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a clear bar u/s 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 193 - 196 I.P.C. viz. for giving false evidence on police charge sheet and therefore the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor could not explain as to how the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence of giving false evidence punishable u/s 193 I.P.C. on the basis of police report. He submitted that the High Court passed order in Crl. Appeal No. 1226 of 1994 directing the police to file charge sheet against PW-1, the police filed charge sheet.

The point that arises for determination in this petition is: Whether the proceedings in C.C. No. 607 of 2000 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are liable to be quashed?

POINT:

As seen from the record, the offence alleged against the petitioner- accused is the offence punishable u/s 193 Cr.P.C. viz. giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence. As seen from Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. there is a clear bar for taking cognizance of an offence punishable u/s 193 I.P.C. on the police report. The proper procedure to be followed in respect of such cases is the procedure prescribed u/s 340 Cr.P.C. Section 340 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court in which false evidence was given either upon an application made to it or otherwise to make a preliminary enquiry to satisfy itself whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Clause (1)(b) of Section 195 I.P.C. and then record a finding to that effect and thereafter to make a complaint in writing and forward the same to the Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction. The said procedure has not been followed in this case. Merely because the High Court has given a direction to the police to file charge sheet against the witness, the Magistrate does not get jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 193 I.P.C. on a police report. The High Court being the appellate Court in respect of the case in which the petitioner herein said to have given false evidence, can conduct preliminary inquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice to prosecute PW-1 (petitioner herein) and prepare written complaint and send the same to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, as required u/s 340 Cr.P.C. In the alternative the High Court could have directed the Sessions Court in which PW-1 said to have given false evidence to take action against PW-1 in accordance with the procedure prescribed u/s 340 Cr.P.C. Such a procedure has not been followed in this case. The Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of such an offence only on a written complaint by the Court in which false evidence is given or by the appellate Court. No such complaint has been filed in this case. The Magistrate cannot take cognizance of such offence on a police report. Hence, I find considerable force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offence described in Section 191 which is punishable u/s 193 I.P.C. against the petitioner-accused on the basis of the police report filed u/s 173 Cr.P.C. in view of the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Thus, this point is held accordingly.

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 607 of 2000 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad are herby quashed.