AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Barman Roy, C.J.—Being aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.1988 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge, Bhubaneswar rejecting the application of the Inspector of Vigilance u/s 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for lodging a complaint against the respondent for giving false evidence in connection with a judicial proceeding, the State has preferred this appeal u/s 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This appeal has not been preferred by any person, namely, the Inspector of Vigilance, who filed the application u/s 340, Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Special Judge for lodging a complaint against the respondent for giving false evidence. u/s 341, Cr.P.C. only such person whose application u/s 340, Cr.P.C has been rejected or the person against whom a complaint is directed to be made, can prefer an appeal. Therefore, at the instance of the State the present appeal is clearly not maintainable as it has not been filed by the Inspector of Vigilance.
Apart from the aforesaid, since the appeal was filed in this Court about 18 years'' time has elapsed, it will be sheer injustice to interfere with the impugned order at this belated stage.
In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.