P.S.MISHRA, C.J. - (1.) Pretending to be a researcher on law and judiciary and claiming he has successfully researched several judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court in regard to interpretation of law and power exercised by the Courts, the petitioner - Deepak Kumar Prahladka has only exhibited ignorance of law by filing the instant petition. Since the Court, in the instant petition, is not concerned with the alleged activities of the first respondent - Shri Ajit Kumar Sengupta, who was a Judge of this Court, we see no reason why we should advert to any such allegation in the petition against him which is neither relevant nor acceptable for obvious reasons. Yet, we observe, overenthusiasm of the petitioner and his frequent meddling with the proceedings against or by the first respondent who is accused of certain offences and in respect of which certain cases are lodged, has not helped the Courts of Law at all and shown instead, a bias and vindictiveness in the approach of the petitioner in the matter. The only relevant facts in the petition are that the first respondent is charged of certain offences in respect of which a case is registered being one under Section 35(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for alleged contravention under Section 8(1) of the said Act and he moved Courts in several proceedings including for bail before this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 4810 of 1996. The said bail application was heard by a Bench of this Court and disposed of by the order dated 27th November, 1996 by directing that the petitioner be released on bail of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, one of whom be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on the following conditions : "(1) Before being released on bail the petitioner shall surrender his original passport to the FERA Authorities, if not already surrendered; (2) The petitioner shall notify his residential address in Calcutta where he will stay on bail; (3) He shall not leave the locality of his residence; (4) No interference in any way shall be made with the course of investigation, and he shall extend full co-operation with the investigating agency; (5) If necessary the Enforcement Directorate Officers may examine him in connection with the investigation of the matter at his residence between 12 noon to 4 p.m. but not exceeding 3 (three) hours in a day."
(2.) The petitioner has alleged that on 27-11-96 when the bail petition was taken up for hearing, the counsel for the first respondent produced a certificate allegedly issued by one Subir Mazumdar containing the statement that the entire cost of the first respondent's daughter's education in United Kingdom was borne by him (Subir Mazumdar). The Court, according to the petitioner, considered the said statement in the certificate produced by the counsel of the first respondent and granted bail to him allegedly being satisfied by the said statement in the certificate by Subir Mazumdar.
(3.) The petitioner has alleged - "Sengupta made statement before this Hon'ble Court that the entire cost of his daughter's education and boarding in U. K. was borne by one Subir Mazumdar, a London based Solicitor and produced before this Hon'ble Court a certificate dated 18-11-1996 alleged to have been issued by Subir Mazumdar, a London based Solicitor, certifying that the entire cost of Sengupta's daughter's education and boarding in U. K. was borne by him. . . . . . In other words, countering the charges of the Enforcement Officers that Sengupta had illegally sent 75000 U. K. Pounds (Rs. 40 lacs appx) to U. K. in 1994-95 either for his daughter's education and boarding or other purposes, Sengupta, first made statement that the entire cost of his daughter's education and boarding in U. K. was borne by Subir Mazumdar, a London based Solicitor, and then in order to prove his statement, Sengupta produced a certificate dated 18-11-96 alleged to have been issued by the said Subir Mazumdar certifying that the entire cost of Sengupta's daughter's education in U. K. was borne by him. The petitioner submits that in order to avoid arrest Sengupta left for New Delhi on 15-11-96 and either himself fabricated the said certificate to produce the same before the Enforcement Officer and to corruptly use the same in the judicial proceeding. Though both the Enforcement Officer and Ld. CMM refused to believe the said certificate, which prima facie appears to be false and fabricated, but Sengupta also used the said certificate in the judicial proceeding before this Hon'ble Court and successfully induced this Hon'ble Court to believe the said certificate, which prima facie appears to be false, fabricated, to be true and obtained a favourable verdict on 27-11-96, thereby committed a criminal offence punishable u/Ss. 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code." The petitioner has moved the instant application seeking enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure into the said false and fabricated evidence in the shape of a certificate allegedly issued by one Subir Mazumdar. Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a provision to deal with the offences affecting the administration of justice. Section 195 of the Code bars cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, of any abatement of, or attempt to commit, such offence or of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence except on the complaint in writing of that Court or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code contains provision as to false evidence and offences against public justice. Section 191 of the Code which speaks of giving false evidence, says, whoever being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believe to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.;