Exclusive false-evidence complaint procedure bars general complaint route when the witness's inconsistent testimony arose in the same proceeding.
Where a witness is alleged to have intentionally given false evidence in the same judicial proceeding, section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is the exclusive procedure and excludes recourse to sections 476 to 479. The Court treated committal proceedings as part of the same proceeding culminating in the Sessions Court's judgment, so contradictory evidence at the committal stage and at trial fell within section 479-A. Because the complaint had to be initiated on the Court's opinion formed at the time of judgment or final order, the High Court erred in sustaining the prosecution under the general procedure. The discharge ordered by the Magistrate was therefore restored.
Issues: Whether, in a prosecution for false evidence, the complaint could validly be made under the general procedure in sections 476 to 479 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, or whether section 479-A provided the exclusive procedure where the witness is alleged to have intentionally given false evidence in the course of the same judicial proceeding, including the committal stage.
Analysis: Section 479-A was enacted as a special provision with a non obstante clause and an express bar in sub-section (6), showing that where its conditions are satisfied the Court must proceed under that provision and not under sections 476 to 479. The power to initiate a complaint for intentional false evidence depends on the Court's opinion formed at the time of delivering judgment or final order, together with the statutory requirement that prosecution be expedient in the interests of justice. The committal proceedings were treated as part of the same judicial proceeding culminating in the Sessions Court's decision, so contradictory testimony at the committal stage and at trial fell within section 479-A. The High Court's view that the complaint could nevertheless be sustained under sections 476 to 479 was therefore incorrect.
Conclusion: The complaint should have been governed by section 479-A alone, and the discharge ordered by the Magistrate was ; the contrary order of the High Court could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the special statutory procedure for prosecuting false evidence displaced the general complaint procedure, and the impugned prosecution could not be maintained on the basis adopted by the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a witness is alleged to have intentionally given false evidence in the course of the same judicial proceeding, section 479-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is the exclusive procedure and excludes recourse to sections 476 to 479.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
