Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing C.P. Kasi Thevar vs Chinniah Konar on 30 June, 1959

State Of Orissa vs Jagannath Boral And Anr. on 6 December, 1960

A case , Kasi Thevar v. Chinniah Konar, has however taken a slightly different view. His Lordship held that a Court could come to a conclusion that a witness is false only when there were materials placed before it to justify that opinion. Mere appearance of a person a, a witness will not Justify a Court to take action Under Section 479-A. Where it is only after the, judgment was delivery that the necessary documents which would establish the falsity of the evidence were obtained and brought to the notice of the Court, Section 479A would not apply and Sub-section (6) would not operate as q bar for proceedings Under Sections 476 to 479 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I am in complete agreement with the aforesaid view of the Madras High Court.
Orissa High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Of Bombay vs Premdas Sukritdas Gadhewas Koshti And ... on 26 February, 1960

(5) The Legislature could never have contemplated that the procedure contained in S. 49A should be the only procedure applicable to cases where a witness has intentionally given false evidence in any stage of a udicial proceeding or has intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceedings because there may be many cases where it would be impossible for the Judge to discover at the time of his judgment that an offence of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence had been committed in the proceedings before him. For instance, a witness may have given aparticular type of deposition and there may be a contradictory deposition of his which may be discovered only after the Court has delivered its judgment. there may also be cases where there are contradictions in the evidence of a witness which may have gone unnoticted by the Judge. There may also be cases where a statement made by a witness in court, even if false, may not be liable to be contradicted in the same proceedings because under S. 153 of the Evidence Act when a witness has been asked and has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit by injuring his character, no evidence shall be given to contradict him; but, if he answers falsely, he may afterwards be charged with giving false evidence. It cannot therefore be argued that S. 479A of the Code contains an exhaustive and self-contained procedure relating to all classes of perjur. this is clear from the wording of S. 476 and S. 479A and the marginal note of S. 479A. With great respect I differ from the view taken in ; AIR 1959 Mys 117; AIR 1959 Madh Pra and . The view taken in was subsequently dissented from in Durga Prasad v. State of U. P. and also in Kasi Thevar v. Chinniah Konar, . The Madras decsion however related to a case where the necessary documents to establish the falsity of the evidence of a witness were obtained and brought to the notice of the Court after it had delivered the udgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

In Re: Gnanamuthu vs Unknown on 31 December, 1963

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however urged before me that having regard to the provisions of Section 479-A, Crl. P. C. the petitioner could not have been prosecuted under Section 476, Crl. P. C. This contention has been effectively answered by Somasundaram, J. in Kasi Thevar v. Chinnaiah Konar, . The present was a case where for the reasons already set out by me, the enquiring magistrate was not in a position to ascertain that the petitioner had produced spurious ingots or given false evidence, when he passed orders directing delivery of M. Os. 1 and 2 to P. W. 1 and Ponnukamakshi Asari. The bar to proceedings under Sections 476 to 479, Crl. P. C. comes in only when proceedings could be initiated under the provisions of Section 479-A, Crl. P. C. If proceedings could not be taken under the said section, then Clause 6 therein does not operate as a bar for proceedings under Sections 476 to 479, Crl. P. C. As pointed out by Somasundaram, J. in the above case, Section 479-A, Crl. P. C. itself clearly states "When the Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence the Court shall at the time of judgment of final order record a finding to that effect." The conditions necessary for the application of Section 479-A therefore are that the Court before it delivers its judgment or at any rate at the time of delivering the judgment must form an opinion that a particular witness or witnesses is or are giving false evidence; if the Court could not form any opinion about the falsity of the evidence of the witness appearing before it, then certainly the Court cannot at the time of delivering the judgment record any finding about the same. A Court can come to a conclusion that a witness is false only when there are materials placed before it to justify that opinion. If no materials were placed before the Court to enable the Court to form an opinion that a witness is giving false evidence, then certainly it could not form that opinion. From a mere suggestion and denial, no Court will ever come to the conclusion that a witness by his denial is giving false evidence. On the other hand, an essential prerequisite for proceedings under Section 479-A, Crl. P. C. is that at the time of delivery of judgment, the Court should have formed an opinion about the falsity of the evidence of the witness and Section 479-A can apply only to such cases and not to cases where it could not form such an opinion.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re: Gnanamuthu vs Unknown on 31 December, 1963

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner however urged before me that having regard to the provisions of Section 479-A, Crl. P. C. the petitioner could not have been prosecuted Under Section 476, Crl. P. C. This contention has been effectively answered by Somasundaram, J. in Kasi Thevar v. Chinnaiah Konar, 1959 Mad WN Crl. 143: . The present was a case where for the reasons already set out by me, the enquiring magistrate was not in a position to ascertain that the petitioner had produced spurious ingots or given false evidence, when he passed orders directing delivery of M. Os. 1 and 2 to P. W. 1 and Ponnukamakshi Asari. The bar to proceedings Under Sections 476 to 479, Crl. P. C. comes in only when proceedings could be initiated under the provisions of Section 479-A, Crl. P. C. If proceedings could not be taken under the said section, then clause 6 therein does not operate as a bar for proceedings Under Sections 476 to 479, Crl. P. C. As pointed out by Somasundaram, J. in the above case, Section 479-A, Crl. P. C. itself clearly states "When the Court is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a witness has intentionally given false evidence the Court shall, at the time of judgment of final order record a finding to that effect." The conditions necessary for the application of Section 479-A therefore are that the Court before it delivers its judgment or at any rate at the time of delivering the judgment must form an opinion that a particular witness or witnesses is or are giving false evidence; if the Court could, not form any opinion about the falsity of the evidence of the witness appearing before it, then certainly the Court cannot at the time of delivering: the judgment record any finding about the same. A Court can come to a conclusion that a witness is false only when there are materials placed before it to justify that opinion. If no materials were placed before the Court to enable the Court to form an opinion that a witness is giving false evidence, then certainly it could not form that opinion.. From a mere suggestion and denial, no Court will over come to the conclusion that a witness by his denial is giving false evidence. On the other hand, an essential prerequisite for proceedings Under Section 479-A, Crl. P. C. is that at the time of delivery of judgment, the Court should have formed' an opinion about the falsity of the evidence of the witness and Section 479-A can apply only to such cases, and not to cases where it could not form, such an opinion.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K. Narayanaswami Reddiar vs T. Kolandaivelu Chettiar And Anr. on 24 September, 1969

3. The Magistrate, who tried this case, had all the materials before him, when he passed the order of discharge under Section 253 (1). Criminal P. C. Obviously, he did not consider it necessary or expedient to launch proceedings against the respondents for preferring any false complaint or for perjury. Where after the judgment documents, which would establish the falisty of the evidence of the witness, are brought to the notice of the Court, Section 479-A. Criminal P. C. will not apply and sub-section (6) of the section will not operate as a bar for proceeding under Sections 476 to 479. Criminal P. C. Vide Kasi Thevar v. Chinniah Konar, and Kuppa Goundan v. M. S. P. Rajesh. . No material was placed subsequently by the appellant to show that the complaint which was filed, was false or the evidence, which was Riven amounted to perjury. The materials were there even at the time when the learned Magistrate passed the order of discharge. Petitioner does not base his claim for launching proceedings against the respondents on any new material, but only on the materials available from the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and the documents already filed. Therefore, in these circumstances, the bar under Section 479-A, Clause. 6, Criminal P. C. would come into operation.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1