Skip to content


T.N. Chadha Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All371(1); 36Ind.Cas.878
AppellantT.N. Chadha
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 435 - revision--high court, power of--perjury--order to witness to sho cause against prosecution for perjury, whether can he set aside. - - the statement in respect of which it is suggested that the offence of giving false evidence was committed was qualified in cross-examination by an admission that the deponent was not quite sure, and was only speaking to the best of his recollection and belief......because a connected application, by the three persons found guilty at the trial in which the present applicant's evidence was given, was also pending before this court for disposal. after having gone through the record in connection with the application of par-manand and others, i am in a position to say without hesitation that no good purpose would be served by the further continuance of the proceedings initiated by the order complained of. the statement in respect of which it is suggested that the offence of giving false evidence was committed was qualified in cross-examination by an admission that the deponent was not quite sure, and was only speaking to the best of his recollection and belief. according to the english practice he should then have been asked whether he was.....
Judgment:

Piggott, J.

1. This is an application asking this Court to interfere with an order of the District Magistrate of Allahabad calling upon the applicant to show cause why his prosecution under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code should not be directed. For obvious reasons it is a very unusual thing for this Court to interfere in such a matter at so early a stage; but precedent can be shown for the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction, vide Queen-Empress v. lagan Singh A.W.N. (1892) 102 Presumably this application was admitted because a connected application, by the three persons found guilty at the trial in which the present applicant's evidence was given, was also pending before this Court for disposal. After having gone through the record in connection with the application of Par-manand and others, I am in a position to say without hesitation that no good purpose would be served by the further continuance of the proceedings initiated by the order complained of. The statement in respect of which it is suggested that the offence of giving false evidence was committed was qualified in cross-examination by an admission that the deponent was not quite sure, and was only speaking to the best of his recollection and belief. According to the English practice he should then have been asked whether he was prepared to swear to the fact as true. It is obvious from his answers that he would have declined to do so. If it was any part of the case for the prosecution that the present applicant was shielding the three accused persons from justice, his examination before the Court, and more particularly his cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, should have been conducted upon different lines. As the record stands, materials for a successful prosecution for perjury are obviously lacking. Following the precedent set in the reported case already referred to, I discharge the Magistrate's order calling upon the petitioner, Mr. T.N. Chadha, to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //