SHARMISTHABEN PARIMAL TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was one of the witnesses in Special Case No. 15 of 1994, which was instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 498 -A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') wherein the accused persons came to be acquitted by judgement and order dated 25.04.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar. While passing the said order, the learned Sessions Judge found that the petitioner had made a false statement in her testimony despite the fact that she did not understand as to what was spoken to her by deceased, she reiterated that the facts mentioned therein were correct. Finding such statement being false, the learned Sessions Judge ordered an inquiry under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( for short 'the Cr.P.C.'). The petitioner, being aggrieved by such direction, is before this Court with this special criminal application questioning the said order on various grounds.

(2.) THE submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner while relying upon the case of B.K.Gupta Vs. Damodar H. Bajaj, 2001 9 SCC 742 was that assuming that the petitioner made false statement, the complaint under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. could not have filed in absence of finding that it was expedient in the interest of justice to file such complaint as required under the said provision. He, therefore, submitted that the complaint instituted against the petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) LEARNED APP would submit that the Trial Court has made elaborate discussion about false evidence having been tendered by the petitioner and he has submitted that this was sufficient to invoke the power under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C.