LexDR. B. K. PAL CHAUDHRY versus THE STATE OE ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 945 language it is possible to hold that a vehicle which is already in the limits of the Municipality, when it plies for hire, enters the municipal limits. So too, the words "bring within the limits of Mainpuri Municipality " in Rule I emphasize the idea that a laden vehicle cannot be brought within the Municipality until the toll due has been paid. One cannot bring within the Municipality a vehicle which is already in the Munici- pality. Confronted with the clear terminology used both in the section as well as in the Rules, the learned Counsel for the appellant attempted to argue that the words "Mainpuri Municipality" are comprehensive enough to take in part or parts of that Municipality and, therefore, when a la.den vehicle passes from one part of the Municipality to another part, it has to pay toll if there is a barrier between the two parts. This argument may perhaps be ingenious, but to our mind it is clearly unsound. We find it well nigh impossible to hold that a vehicle is brought within the limits of the Municipality when it is brought from one part of the Municipality to another part. In the result, we agree with the construction put upon the section by the High Court. The appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed DR. B. K. PAL CHAUDHRY v. THE STATE OE' ASSAM (S. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR and M. HrnAYATULLAH, JJ.) Criminal Procedure-Intentionally giving false evidence-Show ca11se notice-Duty of Appellate Court--Criminal Procedure Code, s. 479A, su.b-ss. (r) and (5). By sub-s. (1) of s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure "when any ... Criminal Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceedings ...... and that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury ...... and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness should be prosecuted for the offence which appears to have been com- mitted by him, the Court shall, at the time of the delivery of the 1959 The Municipal Board, Mainpuri v. Kanhaiya Lal Subba Rao]. 1959 October 7 946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)) r959 judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reason therefor and may, if it so ; Dr. B. K. Pal thinks fit, after giving the witnesses an opportunity of being Chaudhry heard, make a complaint thereof." By sub-s. (5) of this section v. "that in any case, where an appeal has been preferred from any The State of Assam decision of a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court but no complaint has been made under sub-s. (r), the power conferred on such Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court under the said sub-section may be exercised by the Appellate Court; and where the Appellate Court makes such complaint, the provisions of sub-s. (r) shall apply accordingly, but no such order shall be made, without· giving the person affected thereby an opportunity of being beard." Held, that it is the duty of an Appellate Court acting under these sub·sections to record a finding that in its opinion inten- tionally false evidence had been given and that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and in the interests of justice it is expedient that there should be a prosecution for the offence and also to give the person against whom it is intended to proceed a hearing before making the complaint in respect of the offence. Held, also, that in giving such hearing it is open to the Appel- late Court to hold that no false evidence bad been given or that the evidence given \Vas not intentionally false not\vithstanding that the Court hearing the appeal had taken the view that inten- tionally false evidence had been given. An order directing a complaint to be filed, which is made on the view that the finding in the judgment in the appeal that intentionally false evidence had been given \Vas binding on the Court proceeding under these sub-sections and that it was not open to that Court to take a different vie~·. is a wrong order and cannot be sustained. The rinding required to be made by s. 479A(r) as to the truth of the evidence given or whether false evidence had been intentionally given js only of a prima facie nature; it is not a finding which has any force at the trial upon the complaint made pursuant to that finding and no question of the person prosecuted being prejudiced thereby, arises. CRIMINAL- APPEl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.