http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RAGHUBIR PROSAD DUDHEWALLA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHAMANLAL MEHRA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/1963

BENCH:

ACT:   Criminal Trial-Witness  giving false evidence-Prosecution, if can be initiated-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act  V of 1898), ss. 476, 477, 478, 479A.

HEADNOTE:   The  appellant  was  a  prosecution  witness  against  the respondents.   That  case  ended in  the  acquittal  of  the respondents.   An application was moved under s. 476 of  the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate against the appellant and some other prosecution witnesses with a prayer that  a complaint be made against them.  The Magistrate  was of  opinion that s. 479A of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure was  a  complete  bar  to action  being  taken  against  the appellant and other prosecution witnesses.  So no  complaint was filed against them.    On  appeal  the  High Court set aside the  order  of  the Magistrate  and directed the Magistrate concerned to file  a complaint against the appellant in respect of offences under s.  467 and s. 467/120B of the Indian Penal Code as s.  479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure had no application to  the facts of the present case.    Held  that s. 479A had no application to prosecution  for offences  other  than an offence under s.  193  and  cognate sections  in Ch.  XI and that as regards other offences  ss. 476,  477,  478 and 479 of the Code  of  Criminal  Procedure continue to apply even after the enactment of s. 479A.

JUDGMENT:   CRIMINAL  APPELLATE, JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.  44 of 1961.    Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September  16, 1960 of the Calcutta High Court  in  Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1958.    D.N. Mukherjee, for the appellant,  981   B. K. Bhattacharya, and Sukumar Ghose, for the  respondent No. 1.   P. K. Chatterjee and P. K. Bose, for the respondent No. 2.  1963.  May 10.  The judgment of the Court was delivered by   DAS  GUPTA  J.-This appeal by special leave is  against  a decision of the Calcutta High Court.     The  appellant  was  examined  as  a  witness  for   the prosecution in the court of the Additional Chief  Presidency Magistrate,  Calcutta, in a case instituted by  one  Mayadas Khanna  against  the respondent.  Chamanlal  Mehra  and  two other  persons  under ss. 504 and 506 of  the  Indian  Penal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Code.   That  case  ended in the acquittal  of  the  accused persons  on May 10, 1957.  On June 28, 1957  an  application was made in the Magistrate’s court under s. 476 of the  Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that this appellant and  some of  the other witnesses, including Mayadas Khanna,  examined for  the prosecution in that case had "given false  evidence and/or  have  fabricated false evidence for the  purpose  of being  used  in proceedings before the Court and  have  used false  and  or fabricated evidence as  genuine  and/or  have forged document and/or have used as genuine forged  document and each of the accused has abetted others in commission  of these offences, and praying that after the necessary enquiry a  complaint  be  made to the  Chief  Presidency  Magistrate against  them for the offences committed by these acts.   It appears  that the learned Magistrate Mr. jahangir Kabir  who had  disposed of the criminal case against  Chamanlal  Mehra was no longer available and the application under s. 476 was transferred  by the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the  file of Mr. J. M. Bir, Presidency Magistrate, for disposal.   For this 982 purpose the Chief Presidency Magistrate nominated Mr. J.  M. Bir  as successor of the trying Magistrate.  Mr. Bir was  of opinion that s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a complete  bar  against  any action being  taken  by  him  in respect  of  this  appellant  and  others  who  were  merely witnesses on the side of the complaint in the criminal case. He therefore directed a complaint to be lodged only  against Mayadas Khanna, the complainant, in the criminal case  under s. 504 and s. 506 of the Indian Penal Code and rejected  the application as against the rest.    On  appeal  by Chamanlal Mehra against  the  Magistrate’s refusal  to make a complaint against the other  persons  the High  Court  of Calcutta held that s. 479-A of the  Code  of Criminal  Procedure  had no application to  the  offence  of committing forgery or being a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit forgery.  The High Court considering it  expedient in the interests of justice that a complaint should be  made against this appellant in respect of an offence under s. 467 and  s. 4671120-B of the Indian Penal Code that he  appeared to have committed, set aside the order of the Magistrate  in respect  of  this appellant and made an order  that  such  a complaint be made.    The correctness of the High Court’s view that s. 479A has no application to offences under s. 467 and s. 467/120B  and does  not bar an action being taken against a witness  under s.  476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for such  offences is  challenged before us.  The relevant portion of  s.  479A which was inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by  the Amendment Act or 1955 runs thus :-               "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               983               has intentionally given false evidence in  any               stage  of  the  judicial  proceedings  or  has               intentionally  fabricated false  evidence  for               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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

             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 setting  forth               the  evidence  which, in the  opinion  of  the               court, is false or fabricated and forward  the               same to a Magistrate of the first class having               jurisdiction.............. There  is  divergence of judicial opinion  on  the  question whether  if  action could have been taken  by  the  criminal court  under s. 479A but was not taken action can  still  be taken  under s. 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   But that  question does not arise for consideration  before  us. The question here is : Assuming that where action could have been  taken under s. 479A of the Code of Criminal  Procedure but  was  not  taken by the criminal  court  concerned,  for offences of giving false evidence in any stage of a  judical proceeding or for intentional fabrication of false  evidence for  the  purpose of being used in any stage of  a  judicial proceeding, no action can be taken under s. 476 of the  Code of Criminal Procedure, is it further correct to say that  no such  action under s. 476 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure can  be  taken  even in respect of offences  of  forgery  or conspiracy to commit forgery ? 984    We  do  not  see any reason why this should  be  so.  The special  procedure  of s. 479A is prescribed  only  for  the prosecution  of  a  witness  for the  act  of  giving  false evidence  in  any  stage of a judicial  proceedings  or  for fabrication of false evidence for the purpose of being  used in any stage of a judicial proceeding.  There is nothing  in the  section  which precludes the application of  any  other procedure  prescribed  by  the  Code  in  respect  of  other offences.    In  applying  the  principle  that  a   special provision  prevails over a general provision, the  scope  of the special provision must be strictly construed in order to find  out  how  much of the field  covered  by  the  general provision   is  also  covered  by  the  special   provision. Examining  the special procedure prescribed by s. 479  A  in that  light,  it  is important to notice  that  the  act  of intentionally  giving  false  evidence in  any  stage  of  a judicial  proceeding  and  the  act  of  fabricating   false evidence  for  the purpose of being used in any stage  of  a judicial  proceeding  mentioned in s. 479A of  the  Code  of Criminal  Procedure are the acts which are  made  punishable under  s. 193 of the Indian Penal Code and cognate  sections in Chapter XI.    It  appears clear to us therefore that it is  prosecution in  respect of s. 193 of the Indian Penal Code  and  cognate sections in Chapter XI that is dealt with under s. 479A.  If the  legislature  had intended that  the  special  procedure would  apply to offences other than offence under s. 193  of the Indian Penal Code and cognate sections in Chapter XI  it would  have  used clear words to that effect.   It  will  be unreasonable  to read into s. 479A the meaning that where  a person who appears to have committed an offence under s. 193 of  the  Indian  Penal  Code by  giving  false  evidence  or fabricating  false evidence appears to have  committed  some other  offence  also say, forgery, for the very  purpose  of fabricating false evidence, complaint for such other offence

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

also  985 can be made under s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.    We  are  therefore  of  opinion  that  s.  479A  has   no application  to  prosecution  for  offences  other  than  an offence under s. 193 and cognate sections in Chapter XI  and that  as  regards other offences ss. 476, 477, 478  and  479 continue to apply even after the enactment of s. 479A.   Whether the High Court is right or wrong in its view  that the  appellant  appeared  prima  facie  to  have   committed offences  under s. 467 and s. 467/120B of the  Indian  Penal Code has not been argued before us and we express no opinion either way on that matter. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.