AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N.H. Zaidi, J
Since Mr. Gupta has put in appearance on behalf of the 1st respondent/caveator, the caveat is discharged. Heard parties' counsel on admission. The instant appeal has been directed against the order dated 5.6.2012 passed in O.A. No. 57/2008 by DRT-I, Delhi, whereby the application (I.A. No. 437/2012) filed for initiating proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. against respondent No. 1 has been dismissed.
Mr. Goel contends that during the course of hearing on the application (I.A. No. 299/2012) filed by the appellant in the concerned matter, the counsel for the respondent No. 1 had made a statement on 24.5.2012 on its instructions that the question regarding stamp duty on the assignment deed was sub judice before the Collector, Rewari and on the basis of the said statement the said application was dismissed by the DRT. According to Mr. Goel, the said statement was false as the Collector, Rewari had already disposed of that question by order dated 25.4.2012 and the copy of that order had also been applied by respondent No. 1 on 1.5.2012 and since respondent No. 1 has given false statement/evidence before the DRT, it should be punished for the offence or section 193 I.P.C. for which proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. be initiated against it.
Mr. Gupta, on the other hand, opposes this contention and submits that the matter regarding stamp duty on the deed of assignment was pending before the Collector, Rewari, but he was not aware of the fact that order on that matter had been made by the Collector on 25.4.2012 and as such he made that statement before the DRT. He points out that the certified copy of the order was applied by the clerk of the local Advocate, who was appearing for respondent No. 1 before the Collector, Rewari. He also submits that the said statement was neither made on oath nor knowing that it was false and as such offence of section 193 I.P.C. is not made out and the provision of section 340 Cr.P.C. is not attracted in this matter.
After having considered the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that since section 340 Cr.P.C. provides that where any Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any office referred to in clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of section 193, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, as the case may be, then that Court may after preliminary inquiry, record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof to the competent Magistrate, therefore, prima facie satisfaction about the commission of any offence referred to in section 195(10)(b) Cr.P.C. in respect of the proceeding in the Court is condition precedent for the Court to initiate the enquiry contemplated in that section. Section 193 I.P.C. which has been referred to in clause (b) of sub-clause (1) of section 195 Cr.P.C. reads as under:--
Punishment for false evidence.--Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricate false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
and whoever intentionally gives or fabricate false evidence in another case, shall be punished wit/I imprisonment of either description for 1.1 term which may' extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine,
Tile offence of 'giving false evidence' has been defined In section 191 IPC, which provides that "whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, Dr being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes my statement which is false, and which he either knows or believe to be true or does not believe to be true said to give false evidence."
(Emphasis supplied).
Looking to the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that from the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the record, it does not make out that when the statement about the matter relating to stamp duty on assignment deed being sub-judice before Collector Rewari was made by the respondent's counsel he knew the same to be false or believed to be untrue and as such the offence of giving false evidence under section 193 I.P.C. does not prima facie) make out against respondent No. 1. The order impugned, therefore, does not appear to be suffering with any legal infirmity and this appeal being devoid of any force is liable to be dismissed at this stage itself. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this order be furnished to the parties as per law.