Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Heard Shri Fakhruddin, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rashid Siddiqui, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Z. M. Shah, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 4 and 6. Rest of the respondents are represented but their counsel are not present in Court though the case is taken up in the revised list after waiting for a long time.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Shri Abdul Majid filed a false affidavit before the aforesaid court giving a declaration that against the order of the said Court dated 1-2-1991 issuing warrant of possession over immovable property a revision was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur on 6-2-1991. In this connection Para 1 of the affidavit, which deals with the matter and is relied on is as extracted below :-

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case of false declaration made by the respondent No. 4 before the Court of justice. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, declaration made was false and the deponent of the affidavit was knowing the same to be false, filed a false affidavit and according to him case was covered under Section 193, Indian Penal Code.

6. Perused the order under appeal dated 20-2-1991.

7. It appears that the Court did not apply its mind to the prayer of the appellant for action under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code and did not form any opinion as to whether any case for action under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code has been made out by the appellant or not. The Court observed that the relief which the appellant has sought therein could be sought by him by means of separate proceedings by initiating action against the person concerned and on this basis application was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court has not applied its mind and without considering the legal aspects, rejected the application. Section 195(1)(b), Criminal Procedure Code provides that in respect of such offences as mentioned therein no Court shall take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed the appeal for action against the respondents. So far as other respondents, except respondent No. 4 is concerned, they are not covered and no action under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code can be taken against them as they have not filed any false affidavit or declaration. The only thing pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is that they made joint application to the Court and, therefore, their liability cannot be separated. This part of the argument is sans merit. The application is under the signature of the counsel, as has been stated above, and apart from this the application by itself is not a declaration, therefore, no occasion for enquiry against the respondents other than respondent No. 4 is there.