HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5570 OF 2008 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash proceedings in S.T.C. No. 3 of 2008 on the file of learned Special Judge for A.C.B. Cases-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner filed a private complaint against one Y. Prabhakar Rao, alleging offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, which was tried by the learned Special Judge for A.C.B. Cases-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. In that case, the petitioner, who was examined as P.W.1 deviated from his earlier statement made in Ex.P1. Because the petitioner resiled from his earlier version made in Ex.P1, he was treated as hostile witness of the prosecution and the accused therein was acquitted. However, on the ground that the petitioner gave false evidence in C.C. No. 37 of 2001 and thereby committed perjury, S.T.C. No. 3 of 2008 was initiated against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 193 of I.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner clearly deposed in his cross-examination that his signature was obtained on a typed statement without appraising the contents of the same to him and therefore, he disowned his statement and further, in order to prosecute him for the offence punishable under Section 193 of I.P.C., the said statement should have been made by him on oath, which is not the case here. He also has relied upon judgment of Karnataka High Court in ISMAIL KHAN vs. THE STATE & OTHERS([1]), in support of this contention. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings or not. As laid down in the aforesaid decision, it should be a statement given on oath and if there is any deviation of the same, then only such a person can be prosecuted for committing the offence of perjury. The petitioner deposed that his signature was obtained without appraising the contents of it. It was not given on oath. Further, a copy of the statement of the petitioner given on oath recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. which supports the prosecution version is also filed. Hence, the S.T.C. deserves to be quashed. The Magistrate could have taken necessary steps on the basis of the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings are quashed. _____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 15.4.2011 pnb [1] 1992 CRL. L.J. 3566