463 and 471 I.P. Code.
Pursuant to this order on May 30, 1959 a companyplaint was filed against Babu Lal charging him with companymitting an offence under s. 471 read with s. 463 Indian Penal Code by using the agreement dated July 25, 1917 knowing or having reason to believe that it was a forged document.
With special leave, Babu Lal has appealed to this Court.
Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedure to be followed for prosecution of offenders in case of certain offences affecting the adminis tration of justice.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 31, 1962, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No.
B. Agarwala, K. P. Gupta for K. R. Krishnaswamy for the appellant.
P. Lal, for respondent number 1.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.708 of 1962.
The Munsiff did number dispose of the application by his judgment deciding the suit.
Before the suit was disposed of by the Munsiff the plaintiffs had applied that action be taken against Babu Lal under s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, because Babu Lal had given false evidence before the Court, that he had forged the agreement relied upon by him, and that he had fabricated false evidence and had used such fabricated evidence at the trial, and had thereby companymitted offences punishable under ss.
September 18, 1963.
After the disposal of the suit the plaintiffs moved the Munsiff for an order on the application filed by them.
In appeal to the District Court the finding that the agreement was number genuine was number challenged.
P. Sinha and M. I. Khotvaja, for respondents number.
The Munsiff held that numberaction companyld be taken against Babu Lal for the offence of intentionally giving false evidence or intentionally fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in the suit for such action was barred by s. 479A Code of Criminal Procedure, but in his opinion it was expedient in the interest of justice that a companyplaint be filed against Babu Lal for offences under ss.
60 of 1960.
The plaintiffs claimed that Mohini wife of jairam the first plaintiff had purchased the house occupied by them by sale deed dated August 1, 1932 from the vendor who was also named Mohini, who in her turn had purchased the house by sale deed dated July 25, 1917 from the original owner Kishan Lal.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. Jairam and three others hereafter companylectively called the plaintiffs sued Babu Lal appellant in this appeal in the Court of the Munsiff, Koil, District Aligarh, for a decree for possession of a strip of land, for removal of a wall and a slab of stone and for an injunction restraining the making of certain companystructions in the numberthern wall of the plaintiffs house.
193, 209, 463 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
In support of this plea Babu Lal gave evidence at the trial of the suit and tendered in evidence an agreement dated July 25, 1917 purported to be executed by Mohini to whom Kishan Lal had companyveyed the house reciting that the sale deed in her favour was without companysideration and that she had only a life interest in the house.
Babu Lal who is the son of Kishan Lal pleaded that the vendor Mohini had acquired only a life interest in the house by the deed under which the property was companyveyed to her by Kishan Lal and the plaintiffs predecessor ininterest had acquired numbertitle under the sale deed dated August 1, 1932.
