- (1.) A unique question having far reaching concequences is being raised in the present writ petition by learned counsel Mr. Govind Mathur, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 has moved an application before this Court, supported with an affidavit, stating therein that she is only daughter of late Shri Jeet Singh and she has no brother namely Balwant Singh. It is alleged in the application that Balwant Singh who has filed the present writ petition is an imposter and his act tantamount to contaminate and distort the fountain of administration of justice.
(2.) FROM the material available on record, it is revealed that the petitioner had moved an application under O. 1, R. 10, CPC for his impleadment, which was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Karanpur, district Sri Ganganagar on 31. 7. 86, Annx. 5 to the writ petition. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 31. 7. 86 before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sri Ganganagar, which was dismissed on 18. 7. 96, Annx. 6 to the writ petition. Aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders Annx. 5 and 6, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer, which was also dismissed on 24. 9. 96, Annx. 7 to the writ petition. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is true that Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Karanpur had directed Tehsildar tomake enquiry about the identity of petitioner-Balwant Singh but Tehsildar had made enquiry on the spot, behind petitioner's back, ex parte, without giving opportunity of hearing to him. He also placed reliance on the photostat extract of `khatoni' (pass-book), Annx. 1, alleging that after of death of Jeet Singh, the name of the petitioner is mutated. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 vehemently refuted the afore- said argument and urged before me that respondent No. 6 Jagga Singh and respondent No. 7 Bagga Singh had committed trespass over disputed land, which she had inherited from her father Jeet Singh against whom she filed the present suit for eviction. He invited by attention towards the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer wherein it is found that present petitioner is son of Bagga Singh and not son of Jeet Singh. The Sub-Divisional Officer has placed reliance on the voter list produced before him where Balwant Singh is shown in the family of Bagga Singh as his son. The Sub-Divisional Officer has recorded a positive finding that mutation in the Pass Book (Annx. 1) is forged. The learned counsel reiterated his submission that in view of the aforesaid findings, the petitioner is an imposter. I have given my thoughtful anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar. I am of the view that this Court can not afford to allow my litigant public to contaminate, poison and distort the fountain of administration of justice by fabricating false documentary evidence as well as by giving false statement on oath or by filing false affidavit. Such person or persons cannot be allowed in a civili- zed justice system to de- humanise the conceptanlisation of humane justice by intentionally fabricating and forging false evidence in judicial proceedings for the purpose of being used in such judicial proceedings giving a chance to a judicial human mind to commit judicial error resulting in miscarriage of justice. There is such chance in the present case which is to be avoided by remanding the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer.
(3.) IT is well to remember that 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 believes to be false or does not believe to be true is said to give false evidence within the meaning of Sec. 191, IPC. Such persons are liable to be punished with imprisonment under Sec. 193, IPC which may extend to seven years R. I. and shall also be liable to fine. It is further to be imbibed that Section 192, IPC provides that whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record or makes any document containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appeear in evidence in a judicial proceeding or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such or before an arbitrator and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement so appearing in evidence may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said to fabricate false evidence. Such persons are also liable to be punished with imprisonment under Sec. 193, IPC and shall also be liable to fine. The law must now be taken to be well settled that for prosecuting any one under Sec. 119 and 192, IPC. , a positive finding about filing or giving of false evidence oral or documentary including filing of false affidavit is to be recorded by the Court otherwise such prosecution would be barred under Sec. 195 (b), Cr. P. C. and initiation of complaint under Sec. 340, Cr. P. C. would be treated to be bad in the eye of law. ;