AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bedi, J.—Sham Babu Gupta, petitioner No. 1, is the owner of house No. IX/3383, Tabela Bala Pershad, Delhi, and one Tara Chand were a tenant of a part of this house. The landlord on 3rd November, 1959 filed an application u/s 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 for eviction of the tenant above mentioned. The petition was granted by Shri Om Parkash Garg, Rent Controller, Delhi, on 17th August, 1960. The tenant went up in appeal against that order which was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 4th September, 1961. The tenant still felt dissatisfied and approached this Court in second appeal against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 4th September, 1961, which came up before Mahajan J, on 8th December 1962 who remanded the case to the Rent Controller under Order 41, rule 25, Civil Procedure Code, for a report on the question whether the will dated 21st February, 1960 propounded by the mother of the petitioner in her own favour had been made by the father of the landlord and whether under that will the house in which the landlord was living at that time had been bequeathed to his mother. As instructed by the High Court, S. Asa Singh Gill, Rent Controller, recorded some statements including that of the landlord. After recording the said evidence and without giving any notice to the petitioners in this case and without affording any opportunity to them as required u/s 479-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Rent Controller passed the following order :
This order is made u/s 479-A of the Criminal procedure Code. The complaint shall be made against Chameli Devi P.W. 1, Judge Kishore P.W. 2, Chhote Lal P.W. 3, Raghunandan Lal P.W. 4, Ram Babu Gupta P.W. 5 and Sham Babu Gupta P.W. 6, who have appeared as witnesses in the proceeding before me.
The petitioners, therefore, applied to this Court for quashing the order of S. Asa Singh, Rent Controller, mentioned above, for lodging a complaint against the petitioners as required u/s 479-A, Criminal procedure Code. Notice was issued and this petition, therefore, came up before me for disposal today.
The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, the relevant portion of which runs as under :
Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 476 to 479 inclusive, when any civil, revenue or 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 proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence of the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceeding, and that, for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interests of justice, it is expedient that such witness should be prosecuted for the offence, which appears to have been committed by him the Court shall, at the time of the delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of such proceeding, record a finding to that effect stating its reasons therefore and may, if it so thinks fit after giving the witness an opportunity of being heard, make a complaint thereof in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court.
The counsel submitted that the wording of be section is more than clear. It is evident from the very perusal of it that before a complaint by a Court is lodged against an offender, the Court must give notice to him and hear him if he has anything to say against filing of the complaint and that this provision is mandatory. In support of his contention be has cited Dr B.K. Pal Chaudhry v. The State of Assam 1959 S.C.R. 915, in which the view, as argued by the petitioners'' counsel, is taken. He also quoted before me an unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court given in Messrs Wearwell Cycle Co. (India) v. Amar Nath R.F.A. No. 125-D of 1962, Regular First Appeal No. 125-D of 1962, decided in the 23rd September, 1964. In view of the clear pronouncement on the point in issue by the two Courts, I accept this petition and quash the impugned order. The petition is accordingly accepted.