IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. NO.114 OF 2005 HARIHAR PRASAD GUPTA (1) STATE OF BIHAR (2) SATYA NARAYAN SAFI (3) JITAN RAM (4) MAHESH YADAV (5) MAHENDRA SAHNI AND (6) CHHEDI YADAV ----------- 10 11.05.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The informant-petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 5.11.2004, passed by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No. I, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 1992/179 of 2003 by which he acquitted opp party no 2 to 6 of charges under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. Pursuant to notice opp party no. 2 to 6 appeared through their counsel. A case under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted in the year 1988. Charges were framed on 8.10.2004. It further appears that some of the accused persons absconded and one person was discharged, so charges were framed only against five persons who are opp party no 2 to 6 before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact fake persons have appeared in the court in place of genuine persons and deposed on behalf of prosecution. The petitioner believes so as in course of investigation, the informant and some other witness had identified the accused in TI parade, whereas persons who deposed as informant and other stated that they did not identify any of the accused in the TI parade. On the basis of aforesaid submission, learned counsel states that fake persons have deposed in place of true persons. He submits that the petitioner who is informant was not served notice for appearing in the - 2 - court. Furthermore the offence alleged against opp parties is not compoundable and as such compromise does not hold any meaning. Sri B.P.Verma, learned Senior advocate appearing for opp party no 2 to 6 states that in any view of the matter, the defence cannot be penalized even if fake persons may have appeared and deposed in the case. It is for the prosecution to make necessary safeguards. He does not controvert the submission that the offences are non compoundable. He states that pursuant to the compromise arrived at between the parties, the prosecution witnesses may have deposed that they have not identified the accused in the TI parade or in the dock. Learned counsel further submits that section 193 of the Penal code provides punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. He submits that in case if an application to the aforesaid effect is filed, then the court may make an enquiry of the same under section 340 Cr.P.C. and once the court is satisfied, then it is open to the court to file a complaint in terms of section 195(1) (b) of the Cr.P.C. He submits that till such finding is arrived at in duly initiated enquiry, it cannot be said conclusively that false and fabricated evidence has been adduced. Counsel for the petitioner has filed a petition before the trial court on 16.12.2004 alleging that prosecution gave false and fabricated evidence. The allegation if found to be true can have serious repercussions. . In the backdrop of aforesaid submissions, this court is of the view that the learned trial court should make an enquiry in respect of allegation made by the informant under section 340 Cr.P.C. - 3 - In case after due enquiry, the court finds that the allegations brought by the informant is not true, then it could cause initiation of proceeding against the informant as well. With the aforesaid observations, the revision application against acquittal is dismissed. Shashi (S. P. Singh, J.)