In Re: A.T. Krishnamachari vs Unknown on 1 August, 1933
2. The second argument is that the statement Ex. K being one made under Section 164 to the Sub-Magistrate before the death of the pleader mentioned above which death led to the accused being ultimately charged under Section 304-A, the offence of giving false evidence cannot be said to have been committed in or in relation to the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The authority chiefly relied on is Rami Reddi v. Public Prosecutor of Kurnool (1914) 27 M.L.J. 586, but it has to be noticed that this decision was under the old Code in which the words were "committed before it or brought to its notice in the course of a judicial proceeding". The meaning therefore of the words "in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court" was not and could not be considered in that case. Another point to be noticed is that the ground of the decision in that case was that the Sub-Magistrate was not subordinate to the Sessions Judge. We do not therefore think that that ruling can be applied to the present petition. Another case quoted as analogous is the Full Bench decision in Registrar, High Court v. Kodangi 1930 M.W.N 1130 (F.B.). There a certain man had sent a telegram to the police implicating four persons for a certain murder. The police charged only one of these persons on the ground that the charge against the others was deliberately false. The other persons were not brought to trial. The person who was brought to trial was convicted and the conviction confirmed on appeal. In disposing of the appeal in that case Sir Owen Beasley, Chief Justice, and one of us referred to a Full Bench the question as to whether a complaint against the informant to the police could be made under Section 476 with reference to his false complaint against the persons not tried. The Full Bench held that the offence implicating the persons who were not tried could not be said to have been committed in relation to a proceeding of the Court which tried the case so as to enable it to lay a complaint under Section 476. We think this case is clearly distinguishable because the guilt or otherwise of the three accused who were not charged was not a matter before the Court and therefore the statement as to their guilt could not be held to be one in relation to the matter before the Court. No doubt in this case also P.W. 5 was not an accused before the Court, but from the very nature of the case it followed that if Chidambara Rao was guilty P.W. 5 was not, and that the implication of him by the petitioner in Ex. K was false.