Cr.MP(M) No.50 of 2009 20.8.2009 Present: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General, for the appellant. S/Sh.Surender Sharma and Paresh Sharma, counsel for the respondent. This Court while disposing of the Criminal Appeal No.212 of 2002 had come to the prima facie conclusion that PW/2 Vijay Kumar-respondent herein had treated the court proceedings in a very casual manner. When the statement of this witness was recorded on oath, he first stated that on 12.8.1998 at about 9.30 p.m. the police personnel called him and told him that two sacks of liquor have been recovered from a Gypsy and no recovery was made in his presence. Since the statement was contradictory to the alleged statement of the respondent recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC, he was declared hostile. After he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he admitted to be correct every suggestion made by the Public Prosecutor and stated that the recovery of the said liquor has been made in his presence. When he was cross-examined by the accused, he again changed his stand and denied that any search was conducted in his presence. It is obvious that some portion of the statement recorded on oath was false. The respondent had also signed the recovery memo Ex.PW-2/A. According to this document, the recovery was made in his presence and, therefore, there was contradiction between the document and the statement made in the Court by the respondent. Hence notice was issued to the respondent to show cause why he be not tried for committing an offence either of fabricating a false document or of committing perjury. The respondent has filed reply and has tendered unconditional and unqualified apology. According to him he got confused and could not properly make his statement. The respondent has virtually admitted that he made incorrect/false statement before the Trial Court though according to him the same was made without any ill-will or malafide intention. I feel that the interest of justice will be served in case the respondent is reprimanded and warned instead of his being tried. Accordingly the respondent is reprimanded and warned to be careful in future. It is made clear that if in future, any case of this type is made out against the respondent, he shall be dealt with seriously. Notice issued to the respondent is discharged accordingly. August 20, 2009(m) (Deepak Gupta), Judge