http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: K. KARUNAKARAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: T.   V. EACHARA WARRIER

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/11/1977

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. TULZAPURKAR, V.D.

CITATION:  1978 AIR  290            1978 SCR  (2) 209  1978 SCC  (1)  18  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1992 SC1831  (34)

ACT: Constitution  of  India--Article 136-Exercise  of  power  to prevent  gross  injustice-Perverse  or  palpably   erroneous orders--Criminal   Procedure   Code   1973   Sec.    340(1), 341--Criminal  Procedure  Code 1898 Sec.  476B-Indian  Penal Code-Sec.  193-Sanction for prosecution for perjury  granted by High Court-When this Court would interfere.

HEADNOTE: The   respondent’s  son  was  a  student  in  the   Regional Engineering  College,  Calicut, and was a  resident  of  the College Hostel.  The respondent received a registered letter from the Principal of the College informing him that his son Rajan was arrested and taken into police custody.  This  was during  the time when the proclamation of emergency  was  in force,  since  June,  1975.   The  respondent  had  to  make numerous  efforts and entreaties in appropriate quarters  to anyhow  ascertain  the whereabouts of his son.  He  saw  the appellant who was then the Home Minister of Kerala.  He also met   the  then  Chief  Minister  of  Kerala  and  wrote   a representation  to the Home Minister ,of the  Government  of India with copies to all members of Parliament from  Kerala. A reminder was also sent.  The respondent, however, did  not receive   any  reply  from  any  source.   Thereafter,   the respondent filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in the High  Court in which the present appellant, inter alia was joined as the respondent.   The High Court issued a writ of Habeas  Corpus to  the  respondents  in that  petition  directing  them  to produce Shri Rajan S/o the respondent   in  the Court.   The court  also  ordered that if for any reason  the  respondent thought  that  they would not be able to  produce  the  said Rajan they should   file  a Memo submitting the  information about the steps taken to-trace Rajan and that they failed to locate him.  In the course of the proceedings in the  Habeas Corpus Petition, the appellant filed two affidavits.- In the first  affidavit  the  appellant  denied  having  told   the respondent that his son was in police custody and he further stated  that he had no knowledge that the said Rajan was  in police custody at any time.  In the subsequent affidavit  he deposed  that after Rajan was taken into police  custody  he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

was  belaboured by the Police and there is every  reason  to believe that he met with his death while in police custody. The respondent filed an application under Sec. 340(1) of the Criminal  Procedure  Code before the High Court  for  taking action against the appellant and others for perjury.   The High  Court hearing the application came- to the  conclusion that a prima   facie case was made out under section 193  of the Indian Penal Code and     that  it was expedient in  the interest of justice to lay    complaint     against      the appellant before the appropriate Court. Dismissing the appeal by Special Leave held :- 1.   It is well settled that this Court under Article 136 of the  Constitution would come to the aid of a party when  any gross  injustice  is manifestly committed by a  Court  whose order  gives  rise  to the cause  for  grievance-before  the Court.   If  two  views  are  possible,  it  would  not   be expedient, In the interest of justice to interfere with  the order of the High Court.  The order of the High Court can be quashed  only  if it is manifestly perverse. or  so  grossly erroneous  or  ’so  palpably unjust  that  this  Court  must interfere in the interest of justice and fairply. [217  C-D, F] 2.   The  High Court has taken good care not to  express  on the  merits of certain aspects.  The Court found that  there was no justification to interfere with the Order of the High Court. [217 G] 210 3.   Under  Section 476B of the old Criminal Procedure  Code there  was a right of appeal against the order of  the  High Court  to  this  Court.   ’Mere  Is,  however,  a   distinct departure  from that position under section 341 of  the  new Criminal   Procedure   Code.   It  is,  therefore,   a   new restriction  in the way of the appellant when he  approaches this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. [216 B-C] 4.   The  Court made it clear that the reasons contained  in the  High Court or those mentioned by this Court should  not weigh  with the Criminal Court in coming to its  independent conclusion  whether  the offence under section  193  of  the Indian  Penal  Code has been fully established  against  the appellant beyong reasonable doubt [216 H, 217A]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal, No.  272 of 1977. Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and, Order  dated 13-6-77  of the Kerala High Court in C.M.P. No.  7406/77  in O.P. No. 1141 of 1977. D.   Mookherjee, A. S. Nambiar, Y. Sivarainan Nair and  Miss Pushpa Nambiar for the Appellant. Niren  De, Ram Kumar, Mrs. Sumithra Banerjee, M. K. D.  Nam- boodiry and Dr. N. M. Ghatate for Respondent No. 1. N.   N.  Abdul Khader, Adv.  Gen.  K. M. K. Nair and  K.  R. Nambiar for Respondent No. 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the  judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala of  June 13,  1977,  sanctioning a complaint  against  the  appellant along with two others, who are not before us, for an offence under  section  193  I.P.C. after making  an  enquiry  under section  340(1)  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.   At  the time  of  granting  special leave  this  Court  ordered  for impleading the State of Kerala and the State is  represented before  us by its Advocate General who adopts the  arguments

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

of  the  appellant’s counsel, Mr. Debabrata  Mookerjee,  and also addressed us in support of the appeal. This  particular proceeding is an off-shoot out of a  habeas corpus application instituted on March 25, 1977, in the High Court  of Kerala by T. V. Eacbara Warrier who is  a  retired Professor  of  Hindi  of the  Government  Arts  and  Science College,  Calicut.   His  son Rajan who  was  a  final  year student in the Regional Engineering College, Calicut, was  a resident  of  the College Hostel.  Shri Warrier  received  a registered   letter  from  the  Principal  of  the   College informing him  that  his son, Rajan, was arrested and  taken into police custody on March 1, 1976. This was a time when the proclamation of emergency had  been in  force  in  the country since June  25,  1975.   Nothing, therefore,  could  be  done in the courts  in  view  of  the majority  decision of the Constitution Bench of  this  Court (Khanna, J. dissenting) that 210  211 challenge of even mala fide orders of detention could not be entertained  under  article  226 of  the  Constitution  (see Additional  District  Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S.  S.  Shukla etc. etc.(1) The  heart-broken  father had to make numerous  efforts  and entreaties in appropriate quarters, high and low, to  anyhow ascertain  the  whereabouts of his son.  The point  that  is relevant is that Shri Warrier also saw and met the appellant (Shri  Karunakaran)  who.  was" then the  Home  Minister  of Kerala,  on March 10, 1976, after nine days of  the  arrest. We  are  referring to this fact since it  will  assume  some importance as will appear hereinafter on account of omission by  Shri Warrier to mention about this interview  with  Shri Karunakaran in the original writ application.  Shri  Warrier also  met  the then Chief Minister Shri  V.  Achutha  Menon, several  times and on the last occasion when he had met  him "he  expressed his helplessness in the matter and said  that the same was being dealt with by Shri Karunakaran,  Minister for Home Affairs".  There was also a written  representation by  Shri Warrier to the Home Minister, Government of  India, on  August 24, 1976, with copy to all Members of  Parliament from  Kerala.   There was a reminder to him on  October  22, 1976.  Certain Members of Parliament also took the matter up with  Shri Karunakaran in November, 1976.  It is  sufficient to state that Shri Warrier did not receive any answer to his piteous  queries about the whereabouts of his son.  This  is bow  the  matter had been dragging keeping  the  parents  in great  suspense,  misery  and distress  which  can  only  be imagined. It  so happened that the Lok Sabha was dissolved on  January 18,  1977, and elections to Parliament and the Kerala  State Assembly  were to take place on March 19,  1977.   Emergency was  also necessarily relaxed.  Finding all his  efforts  to trace  the whereabouts of his son unavailing, the  appellant ultimately  printed out a leaflet inviting attention of  the general  public  in Kerala about his utter distress  at  the time when the people were about to go to the, polls.  In the leaflet  Shri Warrier had detailed that his son was kept  in illegal  custody without even informing him and the  members of  his  family his whereabouts.  It was  mentioned  in  his original habeas corpus application that during the  election Shri  Karunakaran,  then,  Home  Minister-,  had   addressed several  public  meetings in various constituencies  of  the State and that he had stated during his speeches that  Rajan was involved as an accused in a murder case and that was why he  was kept in detention.  Shri Karunakaran and  his  party

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

won  in  the State Assembly elections and  Shri  Karunakaran became the Chief Minister in March 1977. On March 25, 1977, which was a Friday, Shri Warrier filed in the High Court the habeas corpus application for  production of  his  son,  impleading the Home  Secretary,  Kerala,  the Inspector   General  of  Police,  Kerala,  and  the   Deputy Inspector  General of Police, ’Crime Branch, Kerala, as  the first three respondents.  The application was (1) [1976] suppl S.C.R.172. 212 moved  on the next working day, namely, March 28, 1977,  and the  learned Advocate General took notice on behalf  of  the respondents in the petition and the case was posted to March 30, 1977, for showing cause as to why the application should not be granted. Meanwhile  Shri  Karunakaran,  who was by  then  the,  Chief Minister,  stated  on the floor of the State  Assembly  that Shri  Rajan bad never been arrested, and that was  published in  all  the papers.  That led to the  application  by  Shri Warrier  on March 30, 1977, to implead Shri Karunakaran  and the   District  Superintendent  of  Police,  Kozhikode,   as additional  respondents to his petition.  The learned  Addi- tional Advocate General took notice of this petition and the same was allowed by the High Court on that very day. Counter  affidavits  by  the  respondents,  including   Shri Karunakaran’s,  were  sworn on March 31, 1977 and  filed  on April 4, 1977, and the case was posted to April 6, 1977.  On April 6, 1977, Shri Warrier filed a reply affidavit.   Along with it affidavits of 12 persons were also filed in  support of his case that Rajan bad been taken into police custody on March 1, 1976. Shri  Warrier  as  well  as most of  the  deponents  of  the affidavits  offered  themselves  for  cross-examination  and although  some of them were cross-examined,  the  Additional Advocate  General  declined to cross-examine  Shri  Warrier. However,  the Principal of the Engineering College, who  had informed  Shri  Warrier  about  Rajan’s  arrest,  was   also examined  as  a witness.  The  learned  Additional  Advocate General  was  candid  enough not to  question  his  veracity except  to point out that he had no direct knowledge,  about the  arrest of Rajan which he came to know from  the  warden and  the students.  After, a full hearing of the matter  the High  Court  delivered its Judgement in  the  habeas  corpus application  on April 13, 1977, but in the nature of  things the proceedings were not closed.  The High Court, faced with a unique situation, ordered as follows :-               "We  hereby issue a writ of Habeas  Corpus  to               the respondents directing them to produce  Sri               Rajan  in  this Court on the  21st  of  April,               1977.               If, for any reason the respondents think  that               they will not be able to produce the said  Sri               Rajan on that day their counsel may Me a  Memo               submitting   this   information   before   the               Registrar  of  the High Court on  19th  April,               1977, in which case the case will stand posted               to  23-5-1977,  the date of reopening  of  the               Courts  after the midsummer recess.   On  that               day  the respondents may furnish to the  Court               detailed information as to the steps taken  by               the  respondents to comply with the  order  of               this  Court,  and particularly to  locate  Sri               Rajan.   Thereupon  it will be  open  to  this               Court to pass further orders on this  petition               and  to  that extent this order need,  not  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

             taken to have closed the case". The Advocate General filed a Memorandum as ordered by the High Court on April 19, 1977, on behalf of respondents, 1, 2 and 213 4, the Home Secretary, Inspector General of Police and  Shri Karunakaran  respectively,  stating that  these  respondents were not able to produce Rajan "since the said Rajan is  not in the illegal detention or in the custody or control of the respondents anywhere in the State or outside".  It was  also stated that police sources in Kerala as well as outside were alerted  to locate the said Rajan. it was further  mentioned in the Memo that certain police‘ officers were placed  under suspension  by  the  Government  and  the  Deputy  Inspector General  of  Police was relieved from the  Crime  Branch  on transfer.   It  was also disclosed that  Criminal  Case  No. 304/77 under sections 342, 323, 324 read with section 34 IPC has been registered in the Crime Branch C.I.D. based on the, observations in the judgment of the High Court in the  above habeas corpus petition.  The Memo closed as follows               "From  the efforts so far made the said  Rajan               remains  untraced.  The efforts to locate  him               continue  unabated  and  no  efforts  will  be               spared to trace him". The  above  Memo was filed in the High Court  on  April  19, 1977, as, stated earlier.  It also appears that the petition for  leave  to  appeal  to the  Supreme  Court  against  the judgment was rejected by the, High Court on April 23,  1977. Later, the petition for special leave to appeal against  the judgment and order in the habeas corpus application was also rejected by this Court on April 25, 1977. It appears that Shri Karunakaran resigned as Chief  Minister after  the judgment of the High Court in the  habeas  corpus petition  on  April  26,  1977.   On  May  22,  1977,   Shri Karunakaran  filed  his  second affidavit  before  the  High Court,  this  time  describing himself as a  Member  of  the Legislative  Assembly,  Kerala  State.  In  para-5  of  this affidavit he stated as follows :--               "To  the best of my knowledge and  information               now  available, Sri Rajan after he  was  taken               into  custody by the police was  belabored  by               the police and there is every reason to  think               that  he  met with his death while  in  police               custody.   It is humbly submitted that in  the               circumstances  stated above, I am not able  to               comply  with the writ of Habeas Corpus  issued               to  me  since  compliance with  the  writ  has               become  impossible  on account  of  Sri  Rajan               having  died as a result of police torture  at               the  Kakkayam Investigation Camp on  2-3-1976,               while  in  unlawful custody of the  police  as               disclosed in the report dated 17-5-1977 of the               investigating Officer". It will be of relevance now, as indicated at the outset,  to refer to the affidavit of Shri Warrier of March 30, 1977, in support  of Ms application for impleading  Shri  Karunakaran and it may be appropriate to quote paragraph 2 therefrom :               "I  met  the  present Chief  Minister  Sri  K.               Karunakaran on the 10th of March, 1976 at  the               Man  Mohan Palace at Trivandrum (His  Official               residence  then) and Sri Karunakaran  told  me               then that my son Rajan had been arrested               214               from  his  college  for  involvement  in  some               serious case and he will do his level best  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

             look into the matter and help the petitioner". Shri Karunakaran as Chief Minister made his first  affidavit on March31, 1977, and in reply to the above quoted paragraph 2 he stated in that affidavit as follows :-               "The  allegation  made in paragraph 2  of  the               additional   affidavit   that   I   told   the               petitioner  on 10th March, 1976, that his  son               Rajan  had been arrested from his College  for               involvement in some serious cases and he  will               do  his  (sic)  level best to  look  into  the               matter  and help the petitioner is  absolutely               incorrect.   I have never told the  petitioner               that  his son Rajan was in police  custody  at               any time and so far, I have no knowledge  that               the  said Rajan has been in Police custody  at               any time". He  also  denied  as  false  in  this  affidavit  about  any reference  to  Rajan’s  arrest in his  speeches  during  the election campaign.  In his second affidavit of May 22, 1977, referred to above, he made reference to the, interview  with Shri  Warrier of 10th March, 1976, and stated as follows  in para 8 therein :               "Shri T. V. Eachara Warrier, the petitioner in               the  Original Petition had met me on or  about               10th March, 1976 and told me that he suspected               that, his son is involved in the criminal case               registered  in connection with the  attack  by               some persons on Kakkayam Police Station on 29-               2-1976  and that he wanted me to use  my  good               offices to exclude his son from that case.   I               told him this was a crime under  investigation               by the police; and that it would not be proper               for me as the Home Minister to interfere  with               the  investigation  by the police  by  issuing               directions to them".               He also stated in paragraph 9 as under :-               "I had stated in the Legislative Assembly that               Sri  Rajan had not been in police  custody  on               the  basis  of  the report  of  the  Inspector               General of Police dated 7-1-1977.  Apart  from               this   report  I  had  no  other   source   of               information  on this matter.  I had  no  means               whatever to doubt the correctness of the facts               stated in the report of the Inspector, General               of Police".               He added in paragraph 10 as follows               "It  is a matter of intense agony and  anguish               for  me, as the Minister for Home,  Government               of  Kerala, at that time, that Sri Rajan,  the               son  of  the  petitioner who  was  taken  into               custody by the police on 1-3-1976 happened  to               be  tortured  while in police custody  at  the               Kakkayam camp as a result of which he breathed               his last while in such custody at the camp  on               the  evening of 2-3-1976 as it has  now,  been               revealed  by  the investigation of  Crime  No.               304/77 of Crime Branch CID I may be  permitted               to say in retrospect that the               215               judgment of this hon’ble Court dated 13-4-1977               had  helped me as Chief Minister to  apply  my               pointed  attention  to this  matter  and  take               certain  expeditious steps to bring  to  light               the true facts*. In  the  above backdrop, Shri Warrier filed  an  application

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

under  section  340(1)  Cr.P.C. before the  High  Court  for taking  action  against  Shri  Karunakaran  and  others  for perjury. Lie  tends  to  become almost a style  of  life.   Lies  are resorted  to  by  the  high and the  low  being  faced  with inconvenient  situations which require a Mahatma  Gandhi  to own  up  Himalayan  blunders and  unfold  unpleasant  truths truthfully.   But  when principles are(  sacrificed  at  the altar  of individuals, selfishness, of man, desire  to  con- tinue  in  position and power, lining up with the  high  and mighty,  lead to lies, euphemistically  prevarication.   But all  lies  made, here and there, ignored by  the  people  or exposed on their own to nudity, are not subject matters  for the  Court to take action.  When the Court takes action  it. is a species of falsehood clearly defined under section  191 IPC and punishable under section 193 IPC. The  High Court after hearing the said application has  come to the conclusion that a prima facie case has been made  out under  section  193  IPC and that it  is  expedient  in  the interest  of  justice  to  lay  a  complaint  against   Shri Karunakaran under that section before the appropriate court. The High Court also passed similar orders against the Deputy Inspector   General   of  Police,  Crime  Branch   and   the Superintendent of Police, respondents 3 and 5 respective  in the original application.  The High Court, however, declined to take action against the Home Secretary and the  Inspector General of Police for certain reasons recorded by it. It is submitted by Mr. Debabrata Mookerjee, on behalf of the appellant, that the High Court had no legal justification to make a distinction between; Shri Karunakaran on the one hand and  the Home Secretary and the Inspector General of  Police on  the  other.  All the three had no  direct  knowledge  of Rajan’s  arrest,  says counsel.  Counsel submits  that  Shri Karunakaran  as  Chief  Minister  could  only  rely  on  the official channel of information and he submitted before  the Court  all  the information and he truly  derived  from  the report  of  the Inspector General of Police  of  January  7, 1977.   Mr.  Mookerjee strenuously contends  that  no  prima facie  case has been made out against Shri Karunakaran,  nor is  it  expedient  in  the interest  of  justice  to  lay  a complaint for perjury against him. On  the other band Mr. Niren De, on behalf of Shri  Warrier. submits that in an appeal by special leave under article 136 of the Constitution it will be most inappropriate in a  case of this nature to interfere with the discretion exercised by the  High Court in laying a complaint under section 193  IPC after a regular enquiry carefully made under section 340 Cr. P.C.  According to Mr. De a prima facie case has  been  made out and it is expedient in the interest of justice that Shri Karunakaran should face a trial in accordance with law. 216 Chapter  XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure  1973  makes provisions  as to offenses affecting the  administration  of justice.   Section 340 Cr.P.C. with which the chapter  opens is the equivalent of the old section 476, Criminal Procedure Code,  1898.   The  chapter has  undergone  one  significant change  with  regard to the provision of  appeal  which  was there under the old section 476B Cr.P.C. Under section  476B Cr.P.C. (old) there was a right of appeal from the order  of a  subordinate Court to the superior Court to Which  appeals ordinarily lay from an appealable decree or sentence of such former  Court  Under  section 476B (old)  there  would  have ordinarily  been a right of appeal against the order of  the High  Court  to this Court.  There  is,  however,a  distinct departure from that position under section 341 Cr.P.C. (new)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

with  regard to an appeal against the order of a High  Court under section 340 to this Court.  An order of the High Court made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 340 is  specifically excluded for the purpose of appeal  to  the superior  court under section 341 (1) Cr.P.C.  (new).   This is, therefore, a new restriction in the way of the appellant when  he  approaches  this Court under article  136  of  the Constitution. Whether,  suo  moto, or on an application by a  party  under section 340(1) Cr.  P.C., a Court having been already seized of  a  matter  may be tentatively of  opinion  that  further action  against some, party or witness may be  necessary  in the  interest  of justice.  In a  proceeding  under  section 340(1)  Cr.P.C. the reasons recorded in the principal  case, in  which  a  false statement has been made,  have  a  great bearing  and  indeed action is taken having  regard  to  the overall   opinion  formed  by  the  Court  in  the   earlier proceedings. At  an  enquiry  held  by the  court  under  section  340(1) Cr.P.C.,  irrespective of the result of the main  case,  the only  question  is whether a prima facie case  is  made  out which,  if un-rebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood  to establish  the  specified  offence and whether  it  is  also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. The  party may choose to place all its materials before  the court  at  that stage, but if it does not, it  will  not  be estopped  from  doing  so  later  in  the  trial,  in   case prosecution is sanctioned by the court. In  this case the) High Court came to the conclusion in  the enquiry  that  Shri  Karunakarn,s first  affidavit  of  31st March,  1977  filed on 4th April, 1977,  contained  a  false statement to the effect that he had no knowledge that  Rajan was  in  police custody at any time and that "be  could  not have believed it to be true".  It is only on that basis that the  High Court held that an offence under section  193  IPC was  prima  facie  made out.  Having regard  to  the  second affidavit  of  22nd  May, 1977 and  for  any  other  reasons recorded  by it the aforesaid statement in that  behalf  was considered by the High Court as "deliberately" made. We should make it clear that when the trial of the appellant commences  under  section 193 IPC the reasons given  in  the main judgment of the High Court or those in the order passed under  section  340(1) Cr.P. C., should not weigh  with  the criminal court in com- 217 ing to its independent conclusion whether the offence  under section  193  IPC has been fully established  (against  the, appellant  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  It will  be  for  the prosecution to establish all the ingredients of the  offence under section 193 IPC against the appellant and the decision will  be  based  only  on the  evidence  and  the  materials produced before the criminal court during the trial and  the conclusion  of  the court will be  independent  of  opinions formed by the High Court in the habeas corpus proceeding and also in the enquiry under section 340(1) Cr.P.C. An  enquiry,  when  made, under section  340(1)  Cr.P.C.  is really in the nature of affording a locus poenitentiae to  a person  and  if  at that stage the  court  chooses  to  take action,  it  does not mean that he will not  have  full  and adequate opportunity in due course of the process of justice to establish his innocence. It is well-settled that this Court under article 136 of  the Constitution would come to the aid of a party when any gross injustice  is  manifestly committed by a court  whose  order gives  rise to the cause, for grievance before  this  Court.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

Even  when two views are possible in the matter it will  not be  expedient in the interest of justice to  interfere  with the order of the High Court unless we are absolutely certain that the two preconditions which are necessary for laying  a complaint after an enquiry under section 340 are  completely absent.   The  two  preconditions  are  that  the  materials produced  before the High Court make out a prima facie  case for  a  complaint and secondly that it is expedient  in  the interest of justice to permit the ’prosecution under section 193 IPC. We  should  bear in mind an important aspect.   We  are  not dealing  with  a  case of  conviction  of  an  accused-under section  193 IPC.  The appellant is still to be  tried.   We are  invited to quash the complaint made by the  High  Court prior  to its regular trial.  That can be only on the  basis that  the order of the High Court’s prima facie view that  a complaint  should be laid under section 193 IPC is so  mani- festly perverse, so grossly erroneous and so palpably unjust that  this Court must interfere in the interest  of  justice and fair play. There is another anxiety on our part not to speak more  than what   is  absolutely  necessary  in  this  appeal  as   any expression  or  observation  on any facet of  the  case  may prejudice  either party in the trial which must be free  and impartial  wherein  no  party should  have  any  feeling  of misgiving, suspicion or embarrassment. We  have seen in the judgment of the High Court that it  hag taken  good  care not to express on the  merits  of  certain aspects which it has expressly enumerated.  We will only add that even in those as poets where the High Court may be said to have even remotely expressed some views, these shall  not certainly  weigh  with  the trial court.   We  read  in  the judgment  of  the High Court their natural anxiety  on  this score  and we are only clarifying the true position so  that there  need  be  no embarrassment  or  apprehension  in  any quarters  about the trial.  It is for this very reason  that although  arguments  were heard at length of both  sides  on every conceivable aspect of 218 the case, we deliberately refrain ourselves from making  any observation  thereon.  We feel that any observation one  way or  the other in respect of certain submissions made  before us  may  have an unintended likelihood of  prejudicing  some party or the other at the trial.  Even a remote  possibility of this nature must be avoided at an costs. The  fact  that  a prima facie case has been  made  out  for laying  a complaint does not mean that the charge  has  been established against a person beyond reasonable doubt.   That will  be thrashed out in the trial itself where the  parties will  have  opportunity to produce evidence  and  controvert each  other’s  case exhaustively  without  any  reservation. There  may  be often a constraint on the part  of  a  person sought to be proceeded against under section 340 Cr.P.C.  to come  out  with all materials in  the  preliminary  enquiry. That  constraint will not be there in a regular trial  where he will have ample opportunity to defend himself and produce all materials to show that an offence under section 193  IPC has  not  been  made out.  That  section  contemplates  that making  of  a false statement is not enough.  It has  to  be made  intentionally.  The accused in a trial  under  section 193 will be able to place all circumstances bearing upon the ingredient of the intention attributed to him. After   giving   our  anxious  consideration  to   all   the submissions  made  by counsel of both sides we do  not  feel justified in interfering with the order of the High Court to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

scotch the complaint against the appellant at the threshold. It is true, we are dealing with the former Chief Minister of a State who happened to be the Home Minister at the time  of the incident.  Even the time was singularly unique when  the occurrence  took place and such cases give rise to  emotions and  feelings of bitterness.  It is also true that a  person cannot  swear  a falsehood in the court as a  minister  with impunity  and  come out with the truth only as  a  commoner. When, however, the court is called,upon to ultimately try an offence we do not have any doubt that the matters germane to the  offence under section 193 IPC alone will be taken  into consideration  on the materials produced by the parties  and justice will be done in accordance with law. Where  a  Chief  Minister, for reasons best  known  to  him, relying  entirely  on the official  channel  of  information denied knowledge of an event, people were bumming about,  it is  a  matter which must go forward for a  trial  in  public interest.  Truth does not lie between two lights. Whether the appellant made a false statement before the High Court and intentionally did so will be an issue at large for trial  in the criminal court.  We decline to put the lid  on the controversy, out of hand, since that way does not  point to  justice  according to law.  We close by saying  ne  quid nimis. The appeal is dismissed. P.H.P.                             Appeal dismissed. 219