In pursuance of this order a numberice was issued against the appellant requiring him to show cause why he should number be prosecuted under s. 193, I.P.C. for making companytradictory statements regarding the same incident.
He, therefore, recorded a separate order which runS thus I direct that the Registrar, Sessions Court for Greater Bombay should take necessary steps for prosecution of witness Shabir Hussein Bholu for the offence of perjury in view of his deposition before the Committing Magistrate and his deposition in this Court, both of which are on oath but are at variance with each other.
It also found the other two accused persons guilty under s. 304, first part, read with s. 109, I. P.C. After the trial was over the learned Additional Sessions judge came to the companyclusion that proceedings should be taken against the appellant for intentionally giving false evidence.
At the trial of the appellant before the Chief Presidency Magistrate an objection was raised on his behalf that the provisions of s. 479 A, Code of Criminal Procedure had number been companyplied with by the Additional Sessions judge and that companysequently the Chief Presidency Magistrate companyld number take companynizance of the offence.
The statements which were regarded by him as companytradictory were also set out in that companyplaint.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Bombay High Court the question which arises for companysideration is whether the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, companyld number take companynizance of a companyplaint against the appellant for an offence under s. 193, Indian Penal Code, because the Additional Sessions judge, Bombay, who filed that companyplaint had failed to follow the procedure laid down in s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The appellant was a witness for the prosecution at the trial of one Rafique Ahmed before the Additional Sessions judge, Greater Bombay, for offences of murder and abetment of murder, along with two other persons.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 18, 1961, of the Bombay High Court in Cr.
91 of 1961 by State companyverted from Cr.
Accordingly a companyplaint was filed under his signature before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay.
When, however, he was examined at the trial before the Court of Sessions three months later the appellant stated that while he was standing on the threshold of his house he saw Rafique Ahmed and his two associates companying from the direction of the Muhammaden burial ground.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
Criminal Appeal No.
Revision Application No.
The jury, after companysidering the entire evidence, returned a verdict of number guilty against Rafique Ahmed in respect of the offence under s. 302, I.P.C. but found him guilty under s. 304, first part.
R. Prem, R. H. Dhebar and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent.
When the appellant had been examined as a witness before the companymitting magistrate he deposed that in his presence Rafique Ahmed had stabbed the deceased Chand while he was running away.
92 of 1961.
1131 of 1960.
The State preferred an application for revision before the High Court which granted that application, set aside the discharge of the appellant and remanded the case for trial by the Chief Presidency Magistrate.
A. No.
Miss Kapila and Y. Kumar, for the appellant.
He, however, did number see anything more because, as his children were frightened, he closed the door and remained inside.
September 28.
According to him one of them had a dagger while the others had only sticks with them.
In pursuance of that numberice the appellant appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge and his companynsel submitted that the companytradictory statements were ascribable to the fact that the appellant was illiterate and that his mind was in a state of companyfusion.
