1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.473 OF 2009 Mrs.Surekha Patil .. Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Prakash Naik for applicant Mr.V.V.Purwant for respondent No.2 Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, APP CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15th January 2010 P.C.: 1] This is an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking following reliefs:- “(a) The records and proceedings in Sessions Case No.1133 of 2000 before the learned Ivth ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, be called for; (b) The order dated 14th October 2008 in Sessions case No.1133 of 2000 passed by the learned Ivth Ad-hoc 2 Additional Sessions Judge for Gr.Mumbai to the extent of refusing initiation of action against the respondent No.2 as prayed for by the applicant before the said court may be set aside and the said trial court may be directed to initiate proceedings against the respondent No.2 under section 345 of the Cr.P.C.” 2] It is the case of the applicant that she was original accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.1133 of 2000 which came to be numbered as such upon a C.R., being lodged alleging offences punishable under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 342, 384, 506 (II), 365, 302, 201, read with section 149 of IPC. 3] It is the case of the applicant before me that one P.I.Shivale who investigated the case found that the deceased died by accident and this was not a case of the applicant being guilty. The applicant had specifically urged that she has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry as she was Shiv Sena Corporator. The Police Inspecor Mr.Shivale was I.O., at the relevant time and had a grudge against Shiv Sena and, 3 therefore, targeted its leaders and workers. The entire case was found to be based upon false version and yet, the learned Judge has refused to take action against under section 344 of Cr.P.C., which reads thus:- “344. Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence:- (1) If, at the time of delivery of any judgement or final order disposing of any judicial proceedings, a court of Session or Magistrate of the first class expresses an opinion to the effect that any witness appearing in such proceeding had knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceeding, it or he may, if satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the witness should be tried summarily for giving or fabricating, as the case may be, false evidence, take cognisance of the offence and may, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence, try such offender summarily and sentence him to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or 4 to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; (2) In every such case, the court shall follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials. (3) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the Court to make a complaint under section 340 for the offence, where it does not choose to proceed under this section. (4) Where, after any action is initiated under sub-section (1), it is made to appear to the Court of session or Magistrate of the first class that an appeal or an application for revision has been preferred or filed against the judgement or order in which the opinion referred to in that sub-section has been expressed, it or he shall stay further proceedings of the trial until the disposal of the appeal or the application for revision, as the case may be, and thereupon the further proceedings of the trial shall abide by the results of the appeal or application 5 for revision.” 4] A bare perusal of the same would indicate that the learned Sessions Judge while disposing of judicial proceedings and at the time of delivering any judgement or final order expresses an opinion to the effect that any witness appearing in such proceedings had knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceeding, it or he may, if satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the witness should be tried summarily for such offence, take cognisance thereof and thereafter try the offender summarily. 5] Upon the entire evidence being led, scrutinised and appreciated the learned Judge has observed that investigating officer (PW 10 – P.I. Shivale) has admitted in cross examination that statement of P.Ws. Patil and Mhatre were recorded on 31st December 2000 and both have not given their statements nor details of incident. The evidence of IO falsifies evidence of prosecution witnesses is the conclusion in para 45 and the admissions given in para 46 are to the effect that the crime came to be 6 registered under pressure and influence of a Morcha of political parties and with a view to implicate the sitting Corporator. Thereafter, evidence of defendant’s witness No.1 is referred to and in para 48, after concluding that the concerned PI has not investigated the particular crime impartially, the learned Judge observes that this is not a case of false evidence on oath with an intent necessary to proceed under section 344. 6] I do not see how in exercise of my inherent jurisdiction I can re- appreciate and re-appraise these findings and more particularly when the judgement is of acquittal of the applicant. The whole exercise cannot be undertaken to dislodge and displace discretion of the Court below in refusing to summarily try P.I.Shivale. Although, Mr.Naik would like me to go through the evidence, I refrain from doing so for the simple reason that the discretion does not appear to have been exercised arbitrarily or capriciously and, therefore, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. Application is, therefore, dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)