IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1455 of 2008(W) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC.8/2007 IN SC.601/2003 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SHAJI, S/O. SREEDHARAN, AGED 36 YEARS, WARD NO.IV, NARANGANAM PANCHAYAT, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CBCID, ALAPPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J ...................................... W.P. (C) No. 1455 of 2008 ...................................... Dated: 21st January 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner who was a prosecution witness examined as P.W.1 in S.C. 601 of 2003 on the file of the Addl. Sessions Court-II, Mavelikkara challenges the initiation of the proceedings against him under Sec. 344 Cr. P.C. for giving false evidence before court with a view to help the accused persons in S.C. 601 2003. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as M.C. 8 of 2007. 2. Petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings in M.C. 8 of 2007 on the allegation that the Addl. Sessions Judge-II who himself disposed of S.C. 601 of 2003 is biased against the petitioner. Elaborating on this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner took me through paragraph 11 of Annexure P1 judgment in S.C. 601 of 2003 to contend for the position that the trial judge has recorded a finding that the petitioner has willfully given false evidence. The submission is that, in In the light of the said finding the petitioner may not get impartial justice at the hands of the very same judge who is to try the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. 3. I cannot agree with the above submission. The passage in Ext.P1 judgment relied on by the learned counsel only amounts to expression of opinion that the petitioner was willfully giving false evidence with a view to salvage W.P. © No. 1455 of 2006 -:2:- the accused persons in S.C. 601 of 2003 from their criminal liability. Initiation of proceedings under Sec. 344 Cr.P.C. postulates the expression of opinion to the effect that any witness appearing in the proceedings before the court had knowingly or willfully given false evidence. Hence the expression of opinion in the main judgment disposing of the Sessions Case is inevitable for initiating action under Sec. 344 Cr.P.C. I am not inclined to set aside the proceedings in M.C. 8 of 2007. I am sure that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while disposing of the matter will be strictly proceeding in accordance with law and will disabuse his mind of any impression which might have been gathered while disposing of S.C. 601 of 2003. V.RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE). ani W.P. © No. 1455 of 2006 -:3:-