LexSHABIR HUSSEIN BHOLU versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 501 A plea was made before us that in view of the age of the appellant and the fact that he was just about to retire when the prosecution was started We should reduce the sentence to the period already undergone. These circumstances were borne in mind by the learned Special Judge when he passed a subs- tantive sentence of imprisonment of one year only though the maximum for the offence is seven years. We do not think that there is room for further reduc- tiol) of the sentence. A ppool dismissed. SHABIR HUSSEIN BHOLU v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (JAFER IMAM, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and J. R. MunuoLKAR, ]].) Criminal Trial-Perjury by witnesses -Prosecution of- Order for prosecution made after conclusion of trial-Legality of -Committal proceedings-If a stage of Sessions trial-Gode of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), ss. 476 and 479-A. The appellant appeared as a witness in a jury trial for murder. Before the Court he g'ave a 'tatemeut contradictory to the one he had given before the conunitting court. After the conclusion of the trial and delivery of judgment the Sessions Judge passed a separate order for prosecution of the appellant for intentionally giving false evidence. Held, that the provisions of s. 479A had not been complied with and no cognizance could be taken of the offence Two conditions were laid down for the exercise of the powers under s. 479A, (i) the court must form an opinion that the person has committed one of the two categories of offences referred to in s. 479A, and (ii) the Court must come to the conclusion that for the eradication of the evils of perjury etc. and in the interests of 1962 Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra Mudlw/kar, J. 1962 1962 Shabir Huss,.in Bholu v. Stat_e of Maharashtra 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. justice it is expedient that the person be prosecuted. This opi· nion and conclusion must be arrived at at the time of the deli- very of the judgment or final order in the trial; the court cannot later on resort to s. 476 and make a complaint against the wit- nesses. The provisions of ss. 4 76 to 4 79 were totally excluded where the offence is of the kind specified in s. 479A, and if in such a case action is not taken under s. 4 79A no action can be taken under ss. 476 to 479. Purshotam. Lal v. Marian Lal, A. I. R. (1959) Punj. 145 and Arnolak v. State, A. I. R. (1961) Raj. 220, approved. Durga Prasad Khosla v. State of U. P., A. I. R. 1959 All. 744, L«l Behari v. Staw, A. I. R. 1962 All. 251, Jaibir Singh v. Malkhan Singh, A. I. R. (1958) All. 364 and State of Bombay v. Premdas Sukritdas Gadhewal Kosh ti, A. I. R. 1960 Born. 483, disapproved. Badullah v. Staw, A. I. R. 1961 All. 397, distinguished. The provisions of s. 4 79A were applicable to the present case. The fact that the trial was with the aid of a jury did not preclude the Sessions Judge from recording the findings required bys. 479A. While considering whether action should be taken under s. 479-A it was open to the Sessions Judge to say whether the evidence tendered at the trial was true or false. The committal proceedings are a stage in the judicial proceedings before the Sessions Judge, and even if the statement made by the appellant before the committing Court was false the Sessions Judge could take action under s. 479A. CRIMINAL APPELLATE .JuRISDIC'rION: Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated.January 18, 1961, of the Bombay High Court in Cr. Revision Application No. 91 of 1961 (by State) converted from Cr. A. Ne>. 1131 of 1960. Miss Kapi/,o, and Y. Kumar, for the appellant. D. R. Prem, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent. 1962. September 28. The Judgment of tht Court was delivered by 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS MuDHOLKAR, J.-ln this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Bombay High Court the question which arises for consideratiqn is whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, could not take cognizance of a complaint against the appellant for an offence under s. 193, Indian Penal Code, because the Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay, who filed that complaint had failed to follow the proce- dure laid down in s. 4 79A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant was a witness for the prosecution at the trial of one Rafique Ahmed before the Addi- tional Sessions Judge, Gre2,ter Bomb
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.