Skip to content


Subbarayan Chettiar, Narayanan Chettiar Vs. Varied Puthiya Veetial Cheeku and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Appeal No. 93 of 1962
Judge
Reported inAIR1964Ker157; 1964CriLJ667
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 476, 479, 479A and 479A(6)
AppellantSubbarayan Chettiar, Narayanan Chettiar
RespondentVaried Puthiya Veetial Cheeku and anr.
Appellant Advocate A.S. Krishna Iyer and; A.K. Ramaseshadrinathan, Advs.
Respondent Advocate T.C.N. Menon, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredJudgment. Vide Mahalinga Bhatta v. Venkataraman Bhatta
Excerpt:
- - 3. the appeal has to fail on the short ground that section 479-a criminal procedure code is a bar to proceedings under section 476 being taken......by the plaintiff in o. s. 173 of 1952 of the emakulam district court against the order of the district judge,' rejecting the prayer of the appellant to prosecute the defendants who are alleged to have fabricated ext. t letter which was used as a genuine document. 2. the suit was for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. the defendants contended that the pronote was executed as a collateral security and produced ext. 1 letter by which the plaintiff agreed to receive payment only when 120 bundles of tobacco were delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants. the plaintiff repudiates ext. 1 as spurious. the district judge and in appeal the high court found ext. 1 to be not genuine. though the district judge and the.....
Judgment:

Anna Chandy, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. 173 of 1952 of the Emakulam District court against the order of the District Judge,' rejecting the prayer of the appellant to prosecute the defendants who are alleged to have fabricated Ext. t letter which was used as a genuine document.

2. The suit was for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants contended that the pronote was executed as a collateral security and produced Ext. 1 letter by which the plaintiff agreed to receive payment only when 120 bundles of tobacco were delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants. The plaintiff repudiates Ext. 1 as spurious. The District Judge and in appeal the High Court found Ext. 1 to be not genuine. Though the District Judge and the appellate Court never thought it necessary to take any criminal action against the defendants the plaintiff applied for permission to get the defendants prosecuted under Sections 193, 463 and 471 I. P. C. The learned District Judge refused to act under Section 478 Criminal Procedure Code as he found it unnecessary in the public interests to take up a matter that was finally disposed of on 2-2-1960 by the High Court.

3. The appeal has to fail on the short ground that Section 479-A Criminal Procedure Code is a bar to proceedings under Section 476 being taken. In a similar case one of us relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shabir Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1963 SC 816) where their Lordships observed that '........theview that the provisions of Sections 476 - 479 are totally excluded where an offence is of the kind specified in Section 479-A (1) is correct', has decided that Section 479-A (6) is an absolute bar to the District Judge entertaining a petition under Section 476 when the court which heard the case in which the perjury Is alleged to have been committed takes no action against the offender simultaneously with the delivery of the Judgment. Vide Mahalinga Bhatta v. Venkataraman Bhatta, (1963) 1 Ker LR 53: (AIR 1963 Kerala 215).

4. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed.


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