# 980 SUF'REME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. RAGHUBIR PROSAD DUDHEWALLA v. CHAMANLAL MEHRA & ANR - **Citation:** [1964] 3 S.C.R. 980 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1964 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1961 - **Bench:** P. B. GAJENDJμGADXAR, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. DAs GUPTA - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/980-suf-reme-court-reports-1964-vol-raghubir-prosad-dudhewalla-v-chamanlal-3028 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote Criminal Trial-Witness giving false evidence-Proseculion, if ca« be initiated-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act Y of 1898), ss. 476, 477, 478, 479A. The appellant was a prosecution witness against the respondents. That case ended in the acquittal of the respondents. An application was moved under s., 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate against the appellant and some other prosecution witnesses with a prayer that a complaint be made against them. The Magistrate wasof opinion that s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a complete bar to action being taken against the appellant and other prosecution witnesses. So no complaint was filed against them. On appeal the High Court set ·aside the order of the Magistrate and directed the Magistrate concerned to file a complaint against the appellant in respect of offences under s. 467 ands. 4671120B of the Indian Penal Code as s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure had no application to the facts of th" present case. • • \ HeU that s. 479A had no application to prosecution for J - offences other than an offence under s. 193 and cognate sections in Ch. XI and that as regards other offences ss. 476, 477, 478 and 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure continue to apply even after the enactment of s. 4 79A. CmMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 16, 1960 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1958. D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. • - - • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 981 B. K. Bhattacharya, and Sukumar Ghoae, for the respondent No. 1. P. K. Chatterjee and P. K. Bose, for die respondent No. 2. 1963. 11:ay 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA ].-This appeal by special leave is against a decision of the Calcutta High Court. The appellant was examined as a witness for the prosecution in the court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, in a case instituted by one Mayadas Khanna against the respondent. Chamanlal Mehra and two other persons under ss. 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. That case ended in the acquittal of the accused persons on May 10, 1957. On June 28, 1957 an application was made in the Magisrate's court under s. 4 76 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that this appellant and some of the other witnesses, including Mayadas Khanna, examined for the prosecution in that case had "given false evidence and/or have fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in proceedings before the Court and have used false and or fabricated evidence as genuine and/or have forged document and/or have used as genuine forged document and each of the accused has abetted others in commission of these offences," and praying that after the necessary enquiry a complaint be made to the Chief Presidency Magistrate against them for the offences committed by these acts. It appears that the learned Magistrate Mr. Jahaogir Kabir who had disposed of the criminal case against Chamanlal Mehra was no longer available and the application under s. 4 76 was transferred by the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the file of Mr. J.M . .lilir, Presidency Magistrate, for disposal. For this 190 -- Du c.,_ /, l96J- - ~;~ir ·p;;s'irJ Dudhewalla ,,-· -.' ·y; , '"L :·!·.· \ Piaman'o.J M ehra Das Gupta J, '\ ~· • ·:' ~ ~'.I r 11 - f : - - J.. 9Sf SUPREME COURT REPORTS (196t']VOL. p~rpos; the Chief Presidency Magistrate nominated Mr. J. M. Bir as successor of the trying Magistrate. Mr. Bir wa!: of opinion that s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a complete bar against any action beini~ taken by him in respect of this appellant and ot lters who were merely witnesses on the side of the complaint in the criminal case. He therefore directed a complaipt to be lodged only against Mayadas Khanna_, the complainant, in the criminal case under s. 504 and s. 506 of the Indian Penal Code and rejected the application as against the ## Text 980 SUF'REME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. RAGHUBIR PROSAD DUDHEWALLA v. CHAMANLAL MEHRA & ANR. , (P. B. GAJENDJμGADXAR, K. N. WANCHOO and K. C. DAs GUPTA JJ.) Criminal Trial-Witness giving false evidence-Proseculion, if ca« be initiated-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act Y of 1898), ss. 476, 477, 478, 479A. The appellant was a prosecution witness against the respondents. That case ended in the acquittal of the respondents. An application was moved under s., 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Magistrate against the appellant and some other prosecution witnesses with a prayer that a complaint be made against them. The Magistrate wasof opinion that s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a complete bar to action being taken against the appellant and other prosecution witnesses. So no complaint was filed against them. On appeal the High Court set ·aside the order of the Magistrate and directed the Magistrate concerned to file a complaint against the appellant in respect of offences under s. 467 ands. 4671120B of the Indian Penal Code as s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure had no application to the facts of th" present case. • • \ HeU that s. 479A had no application to prosecution for J - offences other than an offence under s. 193 and cognate sections in Ch. XI and that as regards other offences ss. 476, 477, 478 and 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure continue to apply even after the enactment of s. 4 79A. CmMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1961. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 16, 1960 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 1958. D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. • - - • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 981 B. K. Bhattacharya, and Sukumar Ghoae, for the respondent No. 1. P. K. Chatterjee and P. K. Bose, for die respondent No. 2. 1963. 11:ay 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA ].-This appeal by special leave is against a decision of the Calcutta High Court. The appellant was examined as a witness for the prosecution in the court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, in a case instituted by one Mayadas Khanna against the respondent. Chamanlal Mehra and two other persons under ss. 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. That case ended in the acquittal of the accused persons on May 10, 1957. On June 28, 1957 an application was made in the Magisrate's court under s. 4 76 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that this appellant and some of the other witnesses, including Mayadas Khanna, examined for the prosecution in that case had "given false evidence and/or have fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in proceedings before the Court and have used false and or fabricated evidence as genuine and/or have forged document and/or have used as genuine forged document and each of the accused has abetted others in commission of these offences," and praying that after the necessary enquiry a complaint be made to the Chief Presidency Magistrate against them for the offences committed by these acts. It appears that the learned Magistrate Mr. Jahaogir Kabir who had disposed of the criminal case against Chamanlal Mehra was no longer available and the application under s. 4 76 was transferred by the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the file of Mr. J.M . .lilir, Presidency Magistrate, for disposal. For this 190 -- Du c.,_ /, l96J- - ~;~ir ·p;;s'irJ Dudhewalla ,,-· -.' ·y; , '"L :·!·.· \ Piaman'o.J M ehra Das Gupta J, '\ ~· • ·:' ~ ~'.I r 11 - f : - - J.. 9Sf SUPREME COURT REPORTS (196t']VOL. p~rpos; the Chief Presidency Magistrate nominated Mr. J. M. Bir as successor of the trying Magistrate. Mr. Bir wa!: of opinion that s. 479A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was a complete bar against any action beini~ taken by him in respect of this appellant and ot lters who were merely witnesses on the side of the complaint in the criminal case. He therefore directed a complaipt to be lodged only against Mayadas Khanna_, the complainant, in the criminal case under s. 504 and s. 506 of the Indian Penal Code and rejected the application as against the rest. On appeal by Chamanlal Mehra against the Magistrate's refusal to make a complaint against the other persons the High Court of Calcutta held that s. 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure had no applicatiOJ11 to the offence of committing forgery or being a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit forgery. The High Court considering it expedient in the inte:rests of justice that a complaint should be made agaiinst this appellant in respect of an offence under s. 467 and s. 467 /120-B of the Indian Penal Code that he appeared to have committed, set aside the order of the Magistrate in respect of this appellant and made an order that such a complaint be made, The correctness of the High Court's view that s. 4 79A has no application to offences under s. 467 ands. 467/120B and does not bar an action being. taken ag