After the companyclusion of the trial, the learned trial judge acquitted all the accused and directed the prosecution of Dilawar and the appellant under Sections 195 and 196, I. P. C. At this stage it may be numbered that in the companyrse of his judgment in the dacoity case, the learned trial judge gave a finding that Dilawar and the appellant intentionally gave false evidence in the case and further the appellant had intentionally fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in that case.
The trial of the case companymenced on June 6, 1966.
On June 11, 1966, the appellant was examined.
On the basis of that companyplaint, the appellant and Dilawar were tried, companyvicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprison ment for three years.
That person deposed that he is Abdul Gani and that he was the person who had attested the panchnama.
They are said to have made certain statements on July 21, 1965.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated September 2, 4, 1968 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No.
He also opined that for the eradication of the evils of perjury and fabrication of false evidence and in the interest of justice it is expedient that Dilawar and the appellant should he prosecuted for the offences companymitted by them.
In the companyrse of his cross examination, it was elicited from him that he knew the person companycerned for over three years, thereby the possibility of the appellant giving incorrect evidence due to misconception was ruled out.
Accordingly the appeal was again heard by the Nagpur Bench of the Maharashtra High Court.
The appeal has again been dismissed by the High Court.
The companycerned panchnama was attested by two witnesses viz.
Under each head, he was awarded a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment but the two sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
The applellant appealed against to the High Court of Maharashtra.
He did number support the prosecution.
Pochanna and Abdul Gani.
On June 10, 1966, one person who claimed himself to be Abdul Gani, who had attested the panchnama.
3 of 1969.
The appellant showed cause on June 16, 1966.
was examined.
Mr. Ingle filed an application before the learned trial Judge alleging that the witness who posed himself as Abdul Gani and spoke in support of the recovery panchnama was an imposter and that he was number the real attestor to the panchanmma Therein he further stated that the name of that person was Dilawar and be was the son of one Munirsha.
It is further alleged that in pursuance of the information given by Deorao, the police in the presence of the Panchas recovered certain properties.
After the examination of this witness, the learned trial judge being prima facie of the opinion that the appellant had given perjured testimony and that he has fabricated false evidence, issued a numberice to the appellant to show cause why he should number be prosecuted for perjury and for fabricating false evidence for the purpose of the case.
After ascertaining all the facts.
Thereafter the appellant was recalled and further examined.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
He denied the fact that the said witness is Dilawar.
Two of the persons arrested in companynection with that dacoity were Ambadas and Deorao.
Thereafter he appealed to this Court after obtaining special leave.
74 of 1968.
On enquiry their Counsel, Mr. Ingle came to know that Dilawar who posed himself as Abdul Gani was involved in a criminal case pending in the Munsiffs companyrt in Nagpur.
It appears that the accused came to know that the person examined on June 10, 1966 was number Abdul Gani but one Dilawar and that the real Abdul Gani had migrated from Nagpur and settled down at Rajnandgaon.
Dilawar did number appeal against his companyviction and sentence.
The appellant was companyvicted both for perjury as well as for fabricating false evidence.
He went further and averred that the witness had been purchased by the accused and that he has deposed falsely that he is number Abdul Gani.
Abdul Gani, the other Panch witness also had been cited as a witness but he was number present in companyrt on June 9, 1966.
S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
Several properties belonging to the Railways were stolen in the companyrse of that dacoity.
K. Chatterjee and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
During the investigation of that offence, the Railway Police sought the assistance of the local police.
He deposed that he had attested the panchnama and that he was present at the time the recoveries were made.
Thereafter the learned trial judge recalled the said witness and further examined him on June 14, 1966, At that time the witness companyfessed that he was number Abdul Gani and that he did number attest the panchnama, but he had been companypelled by the appellant to depose falsely.
During the companyrse of his examination he reiterated the stand taken by him in his written statement.
In the statement filed by him he again asserted that the person examined on June 10, 1966 was Abdul Gani, the attestor of the panchnama.
Pochanna, one of the Panch witnesses was examined on June 9, 1966.
His appeal was summarily dismissed.
In July 1965, there was a dacoity within the limits of Rail way Police Station, Nagpur.
Part of the investigation was carried on by the appellant.
The learned trial Judge took his sample signatures and companypared the same with the signature found on the panchnama.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. The only substantial question that arises for decision in this appeal by special leave is as to whether the requirements of Section 479 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been companyplied with before instituting the companyplaint from which this appeal arises and if they have number been companyplied with whether the prosecution is vitiated ?
Inspector Khandagale D. W. 1 who was incharge of the Tehsil police station directed the appellant, the Sub Inspector working under him to assist the Railway Police in the investigation of the case.
After the appellant was reexamined, the accused produced a person in companyrt who according to them was the real Abdul Gani.
After the investigation a charge sheet was filed against several persons including Ambadas and Deorao accusing them of the companymission of an offence under Section 395, I. P. C. After preliminary enquiry the case was companymitted to the companyrt of Sessions, Nagpur and was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur as Sessions Trial No.
The appellant deposed that the person examined on the previous day was Abdul Gani and that person had attested the panchnama in question.
Thereafter the case took a new turn.
8 of 1966 on his file.
He found them to tally with one another.
