PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. K JALAYYA
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Click here to view full judgement.
Ramaswami, J. -
(1.) This criminal revision case has been preferred against the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, in C.A. No. 115 of 1951 arising out of M.C. No. 8 of 1951 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bapatla.
(2.) The facts are: In connection with the trapping of one Francis, Train Examiner, who was caught red-handed with a sum of Rs. 30 in marked currency notes by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Tenali, two persons, viz., K. Jalayya and B. Nageswara Rao, the respondents before us, gave statements under Section 164, Criminal P.C. before the learned Additional First Class Magistrate, Tenali. The substance of Jalayya's statement was that he witnessed payment of Rs. 30 by B. Nageswara Rao to Francis on demand at about 4 p.m. on 10-3-1950 at the office, of Francis and that Nageswara Rao promised to pay Rs. 12 to Francis in the next month. The substance of the statement given by B. Nageswara Rao was that he paid a bribe of Rs. 20 to Francis when he was first appointed and continued to pay Rs. 10 per month as bribe, and that on 10-3-1950 on demand he paid Francis Rs. 30 as bribe. The statements duly recorded under Section 164, Criminal P.C. have been properly proved. In the subsequent case launched against Francis In C. C. No. 176 of 1950 in the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bapatla when Jalayya was examined as P. W. 2 he resiled from his statement under Section 164, Criminal P.C. and deposed that he had not witnessed the payment by Nageswara Rao to Francis and Nageswara Rao examined as P. W. 1 resiled from his statement under Section 164, Criminal P.C. and stated that he had never paid any bribe to Francis and that on 10-3-1950 he paid Rs. 30 to Francis in discharge of a loan which he had obtained earlier from Francis. In the result, this Francis has got acquitted. Thereupon complaint was filed under Section 193, Penal Code read with Section 195(1)(b), Criminal P.C. in the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Bapatla. The case for these respondents was that the statements made by them were tutored and enforced statements and that the statements made by them in court were true statements. The learned Magistrate found that the accused persons had deliberately made two totally contradictory and irreconcilable statements and that the statements recorded from them under Section 164, Criminal P.C. were not seen to be tutored and enforced statements and that the later statements made in Court were made with a view to secure the acquittal of Francis and to help him, and that this brought about miscarriage of justice and that it is expedient in the interests of justice that such gross perjury should be put down.
(3.) The learned Sessions Judge, Guntur Mr. B.L.N. Rai, who has now retired, set aside the order of the lower Court sanctioning prosecution on the following grounds:
"The only question is whether it is expedient in the interests of justice that they should be prosecuted. They are illiterate and inexperienced petty labourers. They were completely under the influences of the Police at the time they made statements under Section 164, Criminal P.C. It cannot be said that at that time they were free agents. They were, however, in totally a different atmosphere of perfect safety and security in Court when they gave the evidence. It is difficult to determine which is the truth and which is the untruth. It cannot be said that what they stated under Section 164 was the truth and that what they stated in Court was false. Under the circumstances, it is neither just nor expedient nor necessary in the interests of public justice to prosecute the appellants.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.