-1- IN THE COURT OF MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01 : NEW DELHI In re : CA No. 65/12 O. P. Sangwan, S/o Sh. Hari Singh R/o 63/19, Rama Road, Indl. Area, New Delhi-110015 Appellant versus 1 [ENTITY] (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2 Capt. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Hari Singh R/o BW-16-D, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Also at : Farm No. 36, Dera, Mandi Road, New Delhi Respondents Date of institution of the appeal : 02.01.2012 Date of reserving judgment/order : 17.08.2012 Date of judgment / order : 21.08.2012 JUDGMENT :
1 This is an appeal u/[SECTION] [ACT] against the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2012 vide which the
application u/[SECTION] [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as "[ACT]") filed by the respondent no. 2 [ENTITY] against the appellant, was allowed.
2 The facts in brief are that the respondent no. 2 [ENTITY] handed over a cheque in the sum of Rs.11 lacs to the petitioner, which on presentation was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Consequently, a complaint case u/[SECTION] [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as "[ACT]") was filed against respondent no. 2. During the evidence, the appellant was confronted with a photocopy of the receipt Ex.CW1/D2 on which he admitted his signatures but claimed that they were superimposed. After about eight months, on the application u/[SECTION] [ACT] of respondent no. 2, the applicant was recalled for further examination and the said receipt Ex.CW1/D2 was again put to him but this time he denied his signatures. The disputed signatures of the appellant were sent to FSL for comparison with the specimen signatures and the FSL report confirmed the signatures of Ex.CW1/D2 to be those of applicant. The application u/[SECTION] [ACT] was, thus, moved by respondent no. 2 which has been allowed by the Ld. MM. 3 Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.
4 Ld. counsel on behalf of the appellant has argued that the said receipt had been put to the applicant during his further cross-examination. Moreover, the report of FSL has not been put to the applicant to challenge its correctness by Ld. MM, who observed that it was not an evidence as per [SECTION] [ACT]. It is submitted that the Ld. MM erred in not putting the said FSL report to him to give an opportunity to challenge the said report and hence, the findings returned in the application u/[SECTION] [ACT] are liable to be reversed. 5 Ld. counsel on behalf of the appellant has further argued that the complaint case u/[SECTION] [ACT] had been lodged against the respondent no. 2 and he had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- out of which Rs.90,000/- were directed to be paid to the complainant, failing which he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. It is submitted that the appellant and the respondent no. 2 have settled all their disputes vide MOU, copy of which is Ex.C1 and the said compromise would be effected on disposal of the appeal u/[SECTION] [ACT].
6 It is further submitted that to invoke [SECTION] [ACT], it is essential not only to show that there was false evidence given on oath, but it also has to be shown that it would be expedient in the interest of justice to decide initiate action u/[SECTION] [ACT]. Considering that the matter has been compromised, it is not in the interest of justice that the matter u/[SECTION] [ACT] should be continued. It is, therefore, submitted that the present appeal may be allowed.
7 Ld. counsel on behalf of the complainant has conceded that all the disputes between the parties have been settled between the parties vide MOU Ex.C1, by which the parties have undertaken to be bound.
8 Ld. Additional PP has submitted that the appellant has denied his signatures on the Ex.CW1/D2 on oath and has, therefore, given false evidence and the Ld. MM has passed the order which does not suffer from any infirmity. It is submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9 I have heard the arguments and have perused the record. My observations are as under :
10 Chapter XXVI under the heading "Provisions as to certain offence affecting the administration of justice" contain [SECTION] [ACT] which confers an inherent power on a Court to make a complaint in respect of an offence committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the Court, and if the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. The scope of [SECTION] was examined by the Court in "[PRECEDENT]" (now corresponding [SECTION] of the old Code), wherein it was observed that the two pre-conditions are : firstly, that the materials produced before the High Court make out a prima facie case for a complainant; and secondly that it is expedient in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution under [SECTION] [ACT]. 11 The Supreme Court in the case of "[PRECEDENT]", observed that the word "expedient in the interest of justice" itself imposes an obligation on the Court to exercise utmost care and caution before initiating the proceedings against the respondent. To justify a prosecution for perjury u/[SECTION] [ACT] it must be established that the deponent has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of the judicial proceedings. Further, such a prosecution for perjury should be taken only if it is expedient in the interest of justice.
12 The term "expediency" was explained by the Supreme Court in the case of "[PRECEDENT]", wherein it was observed that this expediency will normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in Court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. 13 Therefore, in order to initiate action for perjury u/[SECTION] [ACT], two conditions have to be satisfied; firstly, that false evidence was led in the judicial proceedings; and, secondly, it is expedient and in the interest of justice to initiate action.
14 In the present case, the complainant in his cross- examination date 03.09.2010 when confronted with this document, which were Marked J at that time. He had deposed that his signatures had been superimposed, although, he had not signed the said document. In his subsequent cross- examination on 04.05.2011 he was again confronted with the same document which was then exhibited as Ex.CW1/D2 and he denied that the signatures encircled at point A on the said document were his. This would show that while in his earlier cross-examination dated 03.09.2010, the complainant had not denied his signatures, but had claimed them to be superimposed. However, in his subsequent cross-examination done on 04.05.2011 he had denied his signatures. The complainant has, therefore, taken a contrary stand in his cross- examination on two different dates. Since contrary statements were being made, either of his statement could have been relied upon by the Court to judge the veracity of the document Ex.CW1/D2. It would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of "[PRECEDENT].'s case (supra)" that mere fact that deponent has made a contrary statements at two different stages in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify prosecution for perjury u/[SECTION] [ACT]. It is also worthwhile to note that this document was a part of series of transactions which had taken place between the parties like agreement to sell and receipts, which were produced during the course of evidence.
15 Moreover, it is not in every case where false evidence has to been led that the proceedings u/[SECTION] [ACT] are liable to be initiated. It has to be further considered whether it is expedient in the interest of justice. In the present case, the parties have amicably settled all their disputes which is witnessed by MOU Ex.C1. The nature of litigation between the parties was more civil in nature in regard to the various payments and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that it is one of those cases where initiation of proceedings u/[SECTION] [ACT] would be in the interest of justice.
16 For the reasons discussed above, it is shown that no action u/[SECTION] [ACT] was liable to be taken and hence, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. 17 Trial Court Record be sent back along with the copy of this order.
18 Appeal files be consigned to the Record Room. Announced in the open Court on 21st Day of August,2012.
([ENTITY]) ASJ-01/PHC/New Delhi