Delhi District Court
E. Raja Babu vs Court Of Own Motion on 14 August, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No.05/2013
E. Raja Babu
S/o Sh. E. Krupanandam,
R/o H4, Type5, Delhi Govt. Flats,
Model Town, Delhi. ......Revisionist.
Versus
Court of own Motion
(Metropolitan Magistrate)
Seelampur, KKD Courts, Delhi30. ........ Respondent.
Date of filing of petition : 28.02.2013.
Date of Arguments : 27.07.2013.
Date of Order : 14.08.2013.
:J U D G M E N T:
1. Aggrieved by the part of the judgment and order on sentence dated 19.01.2013 & 29.01.2013 respectively passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate(NE), KKD Courts, Delhi in a case bearing FIR No.12/2001 PS Seelampur U/s 147/148/149/ 186/323/332/353 IPC titled as State Vs. Chaudhary Mateen Ahmed etc., in so far as the initiation of proceeding U/s 340 Cr.P.C against the revisionist, the revisionist has preferred the instant revision petition on 28.02.2013, which is being assailed by him on the following grounds:
(i). The impugned judgment to restricted part as agitated herein is not in accordance with E. Raja Babu Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.05/2013) Page No.1 of pages 8 Section 340 Cr.P.C.
(ii). Ld. Trial Court was guided by passions and missed the relevant points of law, in opting for initiation of the proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C against the revisionist. The impugned judgment does not make out the intention on the part of the witness to have deposed falsely. Nowhere, in the judgment has come to the conclusion that this witness intentionally deposed false hood, on the other hand Ld. Trial Court believed such portions of the deposition of the witness in convicting the accused.
(iii). Further having not arrived the intention of the witness, the proceedings does not stand the test of law provided under Sec.340 Cr.P.C.
(iv). The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside since Ld. Trial Court has not expressed anything with regard to the expediency of the intended proceedings. Only in the rare cases, where it is expedient in the ends of justice, the proceedings are to be initiated.
In the instant case, there was no expediency in the ends of justice, since the accused were convicted.
(v). The course of proceedings post judgment are in the nature of inflicting self incrimination against the revisionist and is against the fundamental right granted under article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Copy of the petition was supplied to Ld. Addl. PP for the E. Raja Babu Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.05/2013) Page No.2 of pages 8 State, who led his arguments in details. Arguments from the side of revisionist also heard in details.
3. The brief scenario of the emergence of instant revision petition are that FIR bearing No.12/2001 U/s 147/148/149/186/ 323/332/353 IPC was lodged with the Police Station Seelampur against the six accused persons and the present revisionist was complainant in the said FIR. During the trial, revisionist was examined as PW5 and after conclusion of trial, Ld. Trial Court had noted in para 64 of the judgment wherein it opined that the witness was not truthful and initiated proceedings under Sec.340 Cr.P.C and having received the notice of said proceedings, revisionist filed an explanation. Feeling aggrieved by the part of the impugned judgment in so far as the initiation of proceeding under Sec.340 Cr.P.C, the revisionist filed the instant revision petition.
4. I have given my prolonged consideration to the controversy in hand and have also perused the entire material placed before me particularly the impugned judgment and order on sentence, contents of the instant petition including the grounds taken therein and also the explanation filed by the revisionist, to the show cause notice dated 30.01.2013, before the Ld. MM (NE) and in my considered opinion there is a substance in the instant revision petition and this is not a fit case to launch prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C as the explanations put forwarded by the revisionist are satisfactory i.e. the revisionist had no malafide, in deposing, either to cause a dent in the administration of justice or to protect any wrongdoer to malign the process of law while dealing with the accused, but for failing memory; and the circumstances does not warrant initiation of the said proceedings.
In his explanation to the show cause notice dated E. Raja Babu Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.05/2013) Page No.3 of pages 8 30.01.2013, it has been stated by the revisionist that he hails from the muffusil corner in the mid south of India, where he was brought up predominantly in an environment of farming community speaking Telugu language and this area is at bay with Hindi language. After his joining of DANICS service in Delhi, the revisionist slowly get acclimatized with the local tongue spoken in the place of his environment. He has also mentioned about his various postings, after his selection in job in 1997. He has specifically stated in his reply that he deposed before the Ld. Trial Court as PW5 after a gap of about seven and half years i.e. date of incident was 07.01.2001 and date of his deposition before Ld. Trial Court as PW5 was 07.01.2008, which led fading memory, disabling the mind to cascade many faces & persons, that came to the fore & disappeared in this long period. It has also been explained by the revisionist that the incident which led to the filing of FIR and culminated into the present proceedings happened just after three years of service, within which period the undersigned had no personal topography of the area in which the incident had taken place. The area in which the incident had taken place falls under the NorthEast district of Delhi and the revisionist was posted at the time of incident in the West District and more specifically in the Punjabi Bagh sub division that borders Bahadurgarh. The revisionist never had any interaction with the locals of the area namely Seelampur and was assigned with special task of closure of polluting industrial units in this allocated area when the unfortunate incident had taken place. It has also been stated in the explanation that when the complained act occurred, the respondent had no personal acquaintance or interaction with the accused MLA or the corporator. The names of the accused were collected at E. Raja Babu Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.05/2013) Page No.4 of pages 8 the telling of the locals that gathered at the incident site while the respondent was discharging assigned task. It was a melee of a large gathering of the people that flocked. The crowd consisted of all fresh and new faces laced with the onlookers and trouble shooters, who were in cacophony and heckling. Not only the respondent but the lone staff of the respondent being novice to the area and personal topography, revisionist had only a fleeting moment and quick appearances and disappearances of the faces amidst of sound and fury caused by the din of the protesters and queersome faces appearing and disappearing in a trice. Thus, for just a three years old officer, who had just completed probation, as the revisionist then was, could not register in his memory the faces of such fluctuating dicey and tricy humans. The revisionist had no intention to thwart, twist or twitch the true narration of incident to cause pollution in the course of justice.
In AIR 1971 SC 1367 titled as Chajoo Ram Vs. Radhey Shyam it was held as under: "The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution E. Raja Babu Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.05/2013) Page No.5 of pages 8 should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge. ......... Lastly, there is also the question of long lapse of time of more than ten years since the filing of the affidavit which is the subject matter of the charge. This factor is also not wholly irrelevant for considering the question of expediency of initiating prosecution for the alleged perjury. ....." In view of the aforesaid settled law, Ld. MM (NE) should have considered the aforementioned explanation put forwarded by him in his explanation to the show cause notice dated 30.01.2013 as to under what circumstances he had given statement.
In 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) titled as State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P. Venugopal, it was held, "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 340 - Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C for prosecution of person for giving false statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C - The person did not completely disowned giving of statement but made an attempt to explain under what circumstances she had given statement - Not a fit case to launch prosecution under Section 340."
E. Raja Babu Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.05/2013) Page No.6 of pages 8
5. In view of the explanation put forwarded by the revisionist as well the aforementioned settled prepositions of law, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to launch prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C against the revisionist. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the show cause notice dated 30.01.2013 stands withdrawn.
6. With this revision petitioner stands disposed off.
7. Copy of the judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information.
8. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR)
th
Court on 14 August, 2013) Addl. Sessions Judge/North East
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
E. Raja Babu Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.05/2013) Page No.7 of pages 8
CR No.05/2013
E. Raja Babu Vs. Court of own Motion
14.08.2013
Present: As before.
Vide a separate judgment, revision petition of the revisionist stands disposed off.
Copy of judgment be sent to Ld. Trial Court for information.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR) ASJ02 (NE): KKD Delhi 14.08.2013 E. Raja Babu Vs. Court of own Motion (CR No.05/2013) Page No.8 of pages 8