Sajjan vs State of M.P.

S.L. Jain, J.

Appellant Sajjan Singh stands convicted for offence punishable under sections 182 and 201, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court with fine of Rs. 3000.00 in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months by the impugned judgment and order dated 6-11-2000 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ashta, in Sessions Trial No. 91/2000.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that one Gajaraj Singh brother of the appellant was tried for committing the murder of his brother Kumar Singh in Sessions Trial No. 153/92 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Sehore. In that case first information report (Ex.P.3) was lodged by appellant at police station Siddique Ganj. On the basis of the report, a crime was registered at police station Siddique Ganj against Gajaraj Singh. Challan was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session. During the trial statements of witnesses were recorded. The trial Court after conclusion of the trial, while acquitting Gajraj in ST. No. 153/92, found that appellant has made a false report to the police station Siddique ganj, and therefore, he should be prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who disposed of S.T. No. 153/92 filed a written complaint (Ex.P.1) before the Magistrate at Sehore. The complaint case was committed to the Court of Session. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charges under sections 211 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and by the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced him as indicated above.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of his conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.

I have heard Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ku. Alka Pandya, learned Govt. Advocate for the State and gone through the record of the case.

Ramesh Mishra (PW.1) Reader in the Court of Shri Satish Chandra Dubey, Addl. Sessions Judge, Sehore who filed the aforesaid complaint has stated that complaint (Ex.P.1) was filed by Shri Satish Chandra Dubey, Addl. Sessions Judge, Sehore. The appellant admitted before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that Ex.P.2 is the copy of the statement made by him in Sessions Trial No. 153/92. He also admitted that Ex. P.3 is the copy of the FIR lodged by him. In his statement recorded u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code appellant did not dispute that Ex.P.2 is the copy of the report made by him. He has further admitted that he made statement vide Ex.P.4 in the sessions trial.

From the statement recorded as per Ex. P.4 it is clear that appellant admitted in his statement before the Addl. Sessions Judge in S.T. No. 153/92 that said report bears his signature. During the trial appellant admitted that Gajraj Singh did not assault Kumar Singh. Gajraj Singh did not confess before him that he killed Kumar Singh. Thus from his statement it is clear that he had no knowledge regarding the incident still he lodged a FIR at police station Siddique ganj. Thus, he caused to be instituted a criminal proceeding against Gajraj Singh and falsely charged Gajraj Singh for having committed an offence of murder. He admitted that the incident did not take place in his presence. Thus, he was knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for alleged charge against Gajraj Singh, therefore, learned Addl. Sessions Judge has committed no error in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 211 , Indian Penal Code.

The act of the appellant is covered by section 182, Indian Penal Code as well, as he lodged false report with intend to cause S.H.O., Siddique Ganj, to use his lawful power to the injury of Gajraj. A case may fall under both sections 182 and 211, Indian Penal Code, as where a person gives false information to a public servant which he knows to be false and such information amounts to a false charge against a particular person with knowledge that there is no just or lawful ground for it but in such a case he must be proceeded against only u/s 211, Indian Penal Code. Offence under this section being a graver offence.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an offence under sections 182 and 211, Indian Penal Code are triable by magistrate and not by Court of Session and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to try the case and appellant has been greatly prejudiced on account of the case having been tried by the Court of Session and not by the Magistrate as he has been deprived of right of appeal which was otherwise available to him, had the case been tried by the Magistrate.

The contention cannot be accepted. In this case the criminal proceedings were instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, therefore, as per IInd Schedule of Criminal Procedure Code, offence is triable only by Court of Session.

Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that complaint u/s 182, Indian Penal Code could have been filed only by the public servant to whom false information was given. I find force in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The FIR was lodged at police station therefore, only the public servant to whom FIR was made could have filed the complaint. Absence of making the complaint as prescribed by section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, is a fatal defect and cannot be cured u/s 465, Criminal Procedure Code therefore, conviction u/s 182, Indian Penal Code cannot be allowed to stand. However, it will not affect ultimate result in the case in any manner. Offence under section211, Indian Penal Code being a graver offence normally the Courts proceed against only u/s 211, Indian Penal Code. Offence u/s 211, Indian Penal Code is in relation to the proceedings in the Court, therefore, cognizance could have been taken on the complaint made by the Addl. Sessions Judge.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/s 182, Indian Penal Code cannot be allowed to stand. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and awarding a lesser sentence to the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 211, Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 182, Indian Penal Code is set aside and he is acquitted of that offence. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 211, Indian Penal Code are hereby maintained.