KUPPA GOUNDAN & ANR. versus M.S.P. RAJESH

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 05-05-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI, J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1-
A 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
B 
KUPPA GOUNDAN & ANR. 
v . 
M.S.P. RAJESH 
May 5, 1966 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.) 
373 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898). s. 476-Trial con· 
eluded-Maintainability of the complaint for perjury. 
At a trial the appellants gave evidence against the respondent. 
After the con~lusion of the trial the respondent filed a petition in the 
court of the Magistrate under s. 476(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 
praying for the prosecution of the appellants for giving false evi-
dence under s. 193 Indian Penal Code, and adduced evidenee in sup-
port of his contention. The Magistrate thought that in the interest of 
justice the, appellants should be prosecuted and accordingly filed a 
complaint. The appellants contended that the complaint was not 
maintainable, because the trying Magistrate had not followed the 
procedure under s. 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code and it was there-
fore not' open to the Magistrate to take recourse to the provisions of 
s. 476. 
HELD: The prosecution of the appellants under the provisions 
of s. 476 Criminal Procedure Code by the Magistrate after the con-
clusion of the trial was legally valid and was not affected by the bar 
of cl. (6) of s. 479-A. Criminal Procedure Code. [377G] 
The bar of cl. (6) will not apply to a case where perjury is detec-
ted not merely with reference to the evidence adduced at the trial but 
with reference to the evidence adduced in some other distinct pro-
ceeding not then brought before the court or because there is some 
other material subsequently produced after the conclusion of the 
trial and delivery of judgment which renders the prosecution for 
perjury essential in the interests of justice. [377 F] 
Shabir Hussein Bholu, v. State of Maharashtra, [1963] Supp. 1 
S.C.R. 501, explained and distinguished. 
C.P. Kasi Thevar v. Chinnia'i Konar, A.LR. 1960 Mad. 77 and In 
re Gnanamuthu A.LR. 1964 Mad. 446, approved. 
Joi Bir Singh v. Malkhan Singh, A.I.R. 1958 All. 364, Parsotam 
Lal Vir Bhan v. Madan Lal Bas'iambar Das, A.LR. 1959 Punj. 145 
and Amolak v. State. A.LR. 1961 Raj. 220, disapproved. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 69 
of 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
December 9, 1965 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Revision 
Case No. 1261 of 1964 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 1235 
of 1964. 
R. Thiagarajan, for the appellants. 
Purshottam Trikamdas and T. V. R. Tatachari, for the res-
pondent. 
374 
Sl'PREME COL"RT REPORTS 
(1966) Sl:PP. S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, J. The 2nd petitioner Kuppuswami lodged a 
a complaint with Y ercaud Police on October 12, 
1963 
alleging 
that the respondent, M. S. P. Rajesh and other persons had 
formed an unlawful assembly and committed offences of house 
trespass, mischief and causing hurt at 10 p.m. on October 11, 
1963. The complaint was the subj~ct-matter of investigation by the 
police 
who did 
not 
present 
a 
charge-sheet 
against res-
pondent. M. 
S. 
P. 
Rajesh but filed 
a charge-sheet against 
4 other 
persons 
under ss. 
323. 325 
and 448, Indian Penal 
Code in C.C. No. 3097 i 1963 in the Court cf Sub-Magi>tr•1te 
3. 
Sa'em. The case was tried by 
the 
Sub-Magistrate 
\\'ho 
ulti-
mately acquitted 
all 
the 
accused 
by his 
judgment dated 
December 13, 1963. In the course of evidence at that trial 
the !st petitioner was examined as P.W. 
I and 2nd petitioner 
as P.W. 2 and 
it is alleged 
by 
the respc'ndent that 
the 
petitioner gave false evidence to the effect that the respondent was 
also among the trespassers and assailants and that he was armed 
with a gun which another accused took from him. After the con-
clusion of the trial the r~pondent ti!ed a petition in the court of 
A 
B 
c 
the Magi5tratc under s. 476(1), Criminal Procedure Code alleging 
D 
that on October 11. 1962 he along with certain other Directors. 
had attended a meeting of the Board of Diccctors of Chembra 
Peak Estate Ltd. from 4.30 p.m. to 5.15 p.m. at Bangalore and 
that he was not at Yercaud on October 11. 1963. and prayed for 
the prosecution of the petitioners for giving false evidence under 
s. 193, Indian Penal Code. The respondent produced a copy of 
the Draft Minutes of the Board meeting and also cited certain 
witn~»es in support of his case. After co-nsidering the matter, the 
Sub-Magistrate of Salem held that he was satisfied that the res-
pondent could not have been present a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.