Shamsuddin Ahmed, J. - (1.) This Criminal Motion was disposed: of by me by an order dated 8th August 1986. In this Motion one Bishnupada Pal was opposite party No. 4. The Motion concerned an order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to recover an amount of Rs.54,000/ -from the Receiver Opposite Party No. 4 appointed in the said proceedings through Civil Court. Against that order this court was moved. The court directed that in terms of Sec. 431 of the Cr.P.C. the amount be recovered by levy as a fine by the Magistrate himself. Against the said order opposite party No.4 moved the Supreme Court of India and the Special Leave application being No. 2283 of 1987 was dismissed. Munshi Asrafur Rahaman the petitioner has now come up with an application under Sec. 340 and 195 read with Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C It is alleged that opposite party No. 4 Bishnupada pal was appointed Receiver by the learned Executive Magistrate, Arambagh on 30.11.78. Mr. Pal agreed to act as. such Receiver. Learned Magistrate communicated his order of appointment to Sri Pal on 8th December 1978. Thereafter the said Mr. Pal by his letter dated 13.12.78 informed the respective parties including this petitioner intimating his appointment as Receiver and directed all parties to co -operate. This communication is annexure "C" to the petition. After appointment he regularly functioned as Receiver and made all necessary arrangements for cultivation and harvesting the disputed lands. In this proceedings he appeared before this Court and filed his affidavit in opposition . It was submitted that the Receiver was not ill and confined to bed. His age is not 77 years as alleged in his affidavit in opposition. A copy of Voter List has been annexed as annexure "C" to indicate his age. On 15.6.79 and 10.8.79. Pal brought to the notice of the Ld. Executive Magistrate, Arambagh that the first party Munshi Rahaman forcibly cultivated the suit lands by violating the Court's order. On 19.10.84 the Ld. Executive Magistrate found that the petitioner was in -possession of the disputed properties on the date of initiation of the proceedings and was entitled to retain such possession until evicted by due process of law. On 29.10.84 the petitioner filed an application before the Ld. Executive Magistrate for direction on the Receiver including Mr. Pal to pay Rs. 54,000/ - being the money value of different produces retained by the said Receiver upto 1983. Mr. Pal did not submit his accounts since his appointment. In spite of repeated reminders by the Ld. Magistrate he did not appear. On several dates he applied for time. Mr. Pal did not appear, even after service of notice by registered post. The Ld. Magistrate then directed the said Receiver Mr. Pal to pay Rs.54.000/ - to the petitioner. In his affidavit in opposition Mr. Pal has deliberately made false statements to mislead this court in a judicial proceeding pending before him. According to the petitioner by doing so Mr. Pal has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 193, 199 & 200 of the I.P.C.
(2.) The petitioner has filed this application for holding an enquiry as contemplated by Sec. 340 of the Cr. P. O The petitioner was directed to serve a copy of this application on the opposite party Mr. Pal. He entered appearance and has filed an affidavit in opposition. The substance of his affidavit in opposition is that he never made any false statement and has denied all the allegations made by the petitioner on this court. He further took the plea that since at the time of the disposal of the revisional application the court did not come to a finding that the statement made by him in his affidavit in opposition was deliberate falsehood. The court is not now competent to hold an enquiry U/s. 340 read with Sec. 195 of the Cr. P. C.
(3.) Mr. Dey, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted in the affidavit in opposition in Criminal Revisional No. 148 of 86 (stated on oath in paragraph 391) that the order appointing him was never acted upon and he never took charge as a receiver. He further stated that he had no capacity to move being an old man of 11 years and it was impossible on his part to function as receiver. These statements are utterly false and this would be evident on perusal of the records of the case. Mr. Pal by his letter dated 13.12.78 intimated all the parties about his appointment as Receiver, it will also appear from the said list he was aged about 59 years. Mr. Pal stated in his affidavit in opposition that he never acted as a Receiver nor took charge as a receiver, it will appear from the records that he has lodged complaint on 15.6.79 and 10.8.79 regarding cultivation of the disputed lands. It will appear that on 7.12.83 Mr. Pal disclosed his age as 72 years whereas on 10th July, 1986 when he filed his affidavit in opposition he claimed that his age was 79 years. On the basis of these statements Mr. Dey claims that it will prima facie appear that the opposite party Mr. Pal has deliberately made false statements in his affidavit in opposition and thereby an enquiry after the proceedings in relation to which the offence alleged has been committed is disposed of.;