Raktoo Rai vs Emperor

Chapman, J.—This is a petition asking for interference by this Court with an order passed u/s 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiating the prosecution of one Raktoo Rai on a charge of perjury. Raktoo Rai was a witness in a case in which certain persons were charged with unlawful assembly and theft of a crop from a field. The case ended in a conviction in the Magistrate''s Court. In appeal there has been an acquittal upon the ground that the case has every appearance of being false and that the motive for the false case was the dismissal by the Sheohar Raj of Tribeni Lal who gave the information to the Police, the persons whom he accused being mostly the amlas of the Sheohar Raj. Raktoo Rai was called as a witness for the prosecution. The moment his examination commenced he asserted that he knew nothing whatever about the matter. He was thereupon declared hostile and cross-examined at great length. The order passed u/s 476 was after the receipt of the Sessions Judge''s judgment. No reasons are cited in it why the prosecution should be ordered: but in his explanation the Magistrate says that the cross-examination of Raktoo Rai disclosed that the evidence was false, the false statements being to the effect that he had been intimidated into giving evidence before the Police by threats. He was ordered by the Sub-Inspector to give the name of a man named Lalji: the Sub-Inspector said that if he did not do so he would be prosecuted for theft and cheating: that he had been called by Tribeni Lal the first informant and taken to the Sub-Inspeotor: that Tribeni told the Sub-Inspector that Raktoo was his witness: and that he had then said that he would not give evidence as he knew nothing. The Sub-Inspector said that "he cited you as a witness--you will be compelled to give evidence." Thereupon Raktoo said: "I was afraid of his threats and so I spoke." I am of opinion that the order directing a prosecution for perjury merely upon materials arising out of cross-examination is a very unsafe proceeding, especially in the case of a protracted cross-examination of this kind. I have read this cross-examination and I have been unable to find any such manifest contradictions as would afford any basis for a prosecution. That is the only material upon which the proceeding has been based. I also consider it unsafe to charge a witness for perjury upon statements of this kind when the Sessions Judge has found substantial grounds for suspecting the whole conduct of the prosecution. It is clear that the only evidence that the statements were false would be the statements of the Sub-Inspector himself, Tirbeni and other persons under their influence; this being so, the order directing the prosecution of the petitioner is set aside. 1 direct that further proceedings be stayed.