Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
PETITIONER:
S. P. KOHLI, CIVIL SURGEON, FEROZEPUR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/09/1978
BENCH:
SINGH, JASWANT
BENCH:
SINGH, JASWANT
KAILASAM, P.S.
KOSHAL, A.D.
CITATION:
1978 AIR 1753 1979 SCR (1) 722
1979 SCC (1) 212
ACT:
Offices against Public Justice-False evidence, Section
193 of the Penal Code Process, issue of, Section 204 Crl.
P.C., explained.
HEADNOTE:
In connection with the offences under Sections 302 and
376, medical opinion was sought by the Police as to (1) the
nature of injuries on the person of the accused. (2) the
accused potency to perform the sexual intercourse and (3)
Whether the accused had performed sexual intercourse during
the last 24-28 hours, from one Dr. P. K. Mittal, Medical
Officer, Nehru Municipal Hospital Abohar. As according to
the Government instructions in force at the relevant time,
medico-legal cases were to be examined by two doctors, Dr.
P. K. Mittal examined the accused in the presence of Dr.
Mrs. L. K. Grewal attached to the same hospital. On
examination of the private parts of the accused, the doctors
observed the whole of the glans penis and corona of the
accused covered with a thick layer of yellowish material
which smelt like stigma. They therefore advised a thorough
chemical and microscopic examination of the yellowish
material to find out if it was a layer of smegma or not to
enable them to answer third query of the police and referred
to the accused to the appellant who was posted as Chief
Medical Officer, Ferozepur. The doctors in their forwarding
letter stated that they had not at all disturbed the layer
so that the appellant would examine the case in its original
condition and order the sample of smegma to be taken and
sent for chemical examination if he felt like doing so". The
accused could be taken to Ferozepur by the police only two
days later. On going through the letter, the appellant wrote
back saying that no special opinion by him was necessary and
that Dr. Mittal himself could take the scrapping of the
yellowish material and send the same to the chemical
examiner Punjab for opinion. The chemical examiner Punjab,
as well as the Professor of Pathology, Medical College,
Patiala, whose opinion was sought expressed their inability
to carry out any test for smegma as they had no arrangement
for the same. The accused was convicted and sentenced to
death under s. 302 I.P.C. subject to confirmation of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
High Court and to imprisonment for life under s. 376 I.P.C.
The accused in his appeal claimed benefit of doubt
contending that the appellant as well as the other two
doctors failed to examine the glans penis of the accused
with a view to find out whether there were any injuries
thereon or not. On this argument being raised, the learned
Judges constituting the Division Bench felt that it was
necessary in the interest of justice to examine the
appellant as a court witness. They, therefore summoned the
appellant as a court witness and recorded his statement. At
the conclusion of the examination of the appellant, the
learned Judges felt that the appellant had intentionally
made a false statement with a view to shield his own guilt
and to help the accused. They accordingly ordered the
prosecution of the appellant under s. 193 I.P.C.
Allowing the appeal by special leave the Court.
723
^
HELD: (1) What the courts have to see before issuing
the process against the accused is whether there is
evidence in support of the allegations made by the
complainant to justify the initiation of proceedings against
the accused and not whether the evidence is sufficient to
warrant his conviction, but this does not mean that the
Courts should not prima facie be of the opinion that there
are sufficient and reasonable grounds for setting the
machinery of criminal law in motion against the accused. The
moment, this guiding principle is overlooked, the
prosecution degenerates itself into prosecution which often
is fought with evil consequences. In the instant case, the
language in which the observations of the High Court about
the exercise of pressure by the appellant on Dr. Mrs. L. K.
Grewal are couched shows that the High Court was itself not
prima facie satisfied about the validity of the action that
it was taking. [732D-F]
(2) Prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by
courts only in those cases where it appears to be deliberate
and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or
likely. There must be prima facie case of deliberate
falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be
satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the
charge. [732G-H]
In the present case, as the examination of smegma lost
all importance after the lapse of the performance of the
alleged sexual intercourse, the appellant’s statement was
not a matter of substance and the appellant does not appear
to have made any false statement with a malafide intention.
In the circumstances, no useful purpose will be served by
subjecting the appellant to a lengthy, vexatious and
expensive trial which is not likely to end in his
conviction. [732H, 733A-B]
Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr. [1971] 1 SCC p. 744
referred to.
(3) In the instance case (a) the appellant had not
intentionally made a false statement. The words used by the
appellant in answer to the question put to him by the High
Court taken as whole make it manifest that what the
appellant meant to convey was that the accused was never
physically produced before him which fact is amply proved by
the strong documentary evidence viz. the affidavit of Harjit
Singh Head Constable dt. 27th August, 1975 corroborated by
the entries in Roznamacha of the Police Station, city Abhor
of dt. 17th March, 1973. (b) The question of disagreement
between that two doctors and of refusal on the part of Dr.
Mrs. L. K. Grewal to give opinion about smegma were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
purposely introduced subsequently by someone other than the
appellant with some oblique motive and (c) It is well known
in the medical world that the examination of smegma loses
all importance after 24 hours of the performance of the
sexual intercourse. Non-invitation of this fact to the
notice of the learned Judges of the High Court has led to
the error, regarding the examination of smegma after two or
three days after the occurrence. [728H, 729A-D, 730G, 731A,
E-F]
Observation:
The show cause notice besides being not happily worded
is laconic. It does not satisfy the essential requirements
of law. Nor does it specify the offending portions in the
appellant’s lengthy statements which in the opinion of the
High Court were false. In cases of this nature, it is highly
desirable and indeed very necessary that the portions of the
witness’s statement in regard to which he has, in the
opinion of the Court, perjured himself, should be speci-
724
fically set out in or form annexure to the notice issued to
the accused so that he is in a position to furnish an
adequate and proper reply in regard thereto and able to meet
the charge. [734A-B]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3
of 1977.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 29-9-75 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1755-M of 1975.
R. L. Kohli and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the Appellant.
Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JASWANT SINGH, J.-This appeal by special leave is
directed against an order dated the 29th September, 1975 of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh directing
prosecution of the appellant for an offence under section
193 of the Indian Penal Code and asking the Registrar of the
Court to lodge a complaint in respect of the aforesaid
offence in the court of competent jurisdiction.
The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: On
the basis of recovery of the dead body of a minor girl of
fourteen or fifteen years of age named Kaushalaya Devi from
the residential house of one Bhajan Lal aged 35 years,
resident of Abohar (hereinafter referred to as ’the
accused’) on the night between the 14th and 15th of March,
1973 when his wife and children were away, the accused was
tried for the murder and rape of the said girl. To start
with, the police did not effect the arrest of the accused
who from the evidence recorded in the case appeared to be a
big landlord. Later on, however, on the statement of the
father of the deceased girl, a case was registered against
the accused and he was taken into custody at 1.00 P.M. on
the 15th March, 1973. Dr. C. D. Ohri who conducted the post
mortem examination of the dead body of Kaushalaya Devi,
deceased opined on the basis of the observations made by him
that the death of the deceased had occurred as a result of
asphyxia due to constriction of the neck which was ante
mortem and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death The doctor further opined that the deceased had
been raped and the person committing the rape on her was
bound to receive some scratches on glans penis. Accordingly
at about 5.50 P.M. on the 15th of March, 1973, the police
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
produced the accused before Dr. P. K. Mittal, Medical
Officer, Nehru Municipal Hospital, Abohar, and requested him
to opine as to (1) the nature of injuries on the person
725
of the accused, (2) the accused’s potency to perform the
sexual intercourse and (3) whether the accused had performed
sexual intercourse during the last 24-48 hours. As according
to the Govt. instructions in force at the relevant time, the
medico legal cases were to be examined by two doctors Dr. P.
K. Mittal examined the accused in the presence of Dr. Mrs.
L. K. Grewal who was also attached to his hospital and found
the following injuries on his person:-
"1. Circular bruise 2 1/2 cm in diameter present
on the back of right arm 3 cm lateral to the
axillary fold and 14 cm below the top of
right shoulder joint, the circle being of
upper lower arches with healthy central area.
In each arch there are separate specs of
reddish violet bruises suggestive of teeth
marks.
2. 2 cm. in diameter rounded bluish red bruise
which is comparatively much fainter, present
laterally to bruise No. 1. It is uniform in
appearance all over."
In the opinion of both the doctors, injury No. 1 was
the result of teeth bite but as regards injury No. 2, the
doctors expressed their inability to give any definite
opinion. On examination of the private parts of the accused
the doctors found that he was potent and capable of
performing sexual intercourse. During the course of the said
examination. the doctors also observed the whole of the
glans penis and corona of the accused covered with a thick
layer of yellowish material which smelt like smegma. They,
therefore, advised a thorough chemical and microscopic
examination of the yellowish material to find out if it was
a layer of smegma or not to enable them to answer the third
query made by the police and vide their letter No. 426 dated
the 15th March, 1973 referred the accused to the appellant
who was posted as Chief Medical Officer, Ferozepur. In their
aforesaid forwarding letter, the doctors stated that they
had not at all disturbed the layer of sample and had tried
to take no sample so that the Chief Medical Officer "would
examine the case in its original condition and order the
sample of smegma to be taken and sent for chemical
examination if he felt like doing so." The police, was not
however able to take the accused to Ferozepur before the
morning of the 17th of March, 1973. Even on that day, it was
only at six in the evening that the police could contact the
appellant as he was stated to be away on an official errand.
On the aforesaid docket and the connected papers being put
up before him, the appellant wrote back to Dr. P. K. Mittal
saying that no special opinion by him was necessary and that
he (Dr. Mittal) might send without any further delay the
scrapping of the yellowish material mentioned by him
726
from the genitals to the Chemical Examiner, Punjab for
opinion. The communication addressed by the appellant to Dr.
P. K. Mittal ran as under:-
"From
Dr. S. P. Kohli,
Chief Medical Officer, Ferozepur.
To
Dr. P. K. Mittal PCMs-II,
Medical Officer Incharge,
Nehru Memorial Hospital,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
Abohar.
Memo. No. NL/Special-1 Dated 17-3-73
Subject: Medical legal examination of Bhajan Lal
accused in rape and murder case.
Reference your letter No. 426 dated 15-3-73 on the
subject noted above.
Regarding point No. 3 no special opinion by the
under signed is necessary. You may send the scrapping
of the yellowish material from the genitals mentioned
by you to the Chemical Examiner, Punjab for opinion.
You have already been telephonically instructed
through the S.H.O. Police Station Abohar City on 15-3-
73 at 6.00 P.M. to do the needful. Further delay in the
case must be avoided.
Report per return after compliance of order. The
full case of the accused is returned herewith.
Sd/- S. P. Kohli,
Detail attached Chief Medical Officer,
(3) three only. Ferozepur.
Received copy
Sd/- Seen at 6.00 P.M.
H.C. No. 1121 Sd/- S. P. Kohli,
dated 17-3-73 17-3-73."
On receipt of the aforesaid communication from the
appellant, Dr. Mittal carried out the instructions contained
therein but not with out a certain amount of resentment as
appears from the letter Exh. CL1/3 which runs as follows:-
727
"From
The Incharge, Nehru Memorial Hospital, Abohar.
To
The Chief Medical Officer, Ferozepur
No. 6 Dated 18-3-73
Subject: Medical Examination of Bhajan Lal accused.
Dear Sir,
Reference your No. ML-SPL-/1973 dated 17-3-1973.
The accused Shri Bhajan Lal was presented to me on
18-3-1973 at 9.50 AM and I have done the needful as per
instructions given by you.
I had referred the case to your goodself for final
opinion as the Lady Doctor refused to give any opinion
on the plea that she was not familiar with the
appearance and smell of smegma and as for Govt.
instructions where two Doctors are unable to agree on
one point the case is to be referred to Chief Medical
Officer of the Distt. for final opinion. Your goodself
verified the same on phone from the Lady Doctor. I did
not remember any instructions for taking the smear
through the SHO Police and neither your goodself
remember the same on your visit to this Hospital on 16-
3-1973 and 17-3-1973 in connection with the same case.
Today again Lady Doctor is on leave and I am alone
in the Hospital but still I am doing the needful under
your instructions and to avoid any delay on my part.
This is for your information please.
Sd/-
P. K. Mittal,
18-3-1973."
The Chemical Examiner, Punjab as well as the Professor
of Pathology, Medical College, Patiala whose opinion was
sought by Dr. P. K. Mittal expressed their inability to
carry out any test for smegma as they had no arrangement for
the same. The Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur who tried
the accused sentenced him to death under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code for the murder of Kaushalaya Devi subject
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
to confirmation by the High Court and to imprisonment for
life under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for
committing rape on her but acquitted the other four persons
who stood their trial jointly with the accused. The murder
reference and the appeal preferred by the accused against
his convictions and sentences were heard
728
by a Division Bench of the High Court. During the arguments
before the High Court, counsel appearing for the accused
vehemently contended that the appellant had failed to
examine the glans penis of the accused regarding the
presence or otherwise of smegma and also if both the doctors
failed to examine the glans penis of the accused with a view
to find out whether there were any injuries thereon or not,
the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. On this
argument being raised, the learned Judges constituting the
Division Bench felt that it was necessary in the interest of
justice to examine the appellant who was working as Civil
Surgeon, Ferozepur as in their view, the presence or absence
of smegma on the glans penis of the accused was quite vital
from the view point of the defence as well as from that of
the prosecution. They, therefore, summoned the appellant as
a court witness and recorded his statement. At the
conclusion of the examination of the appellant, the learned
Judges constituting the Bench felt that the appellant had
intentionally made a false statement with a view to shield
his own guilt and to help the accused. They accordingly
ordered the prosecution of the appellant under section 193
of the Indian Penal Code as stated above.
Upon hearing counsel on both sides and examining the
record as well as the law bearing on the question in issue,
we are satisfied that the impugned order cannot be
sustained. The only three matters regarding which the High
Court appears to have thought that the appellant made a
false statement are as follows:-
"(1) that the accused was never referred to or
produced before him;
(2) that he did not pressurise Dr. Mrs. L. K.
Grewal ’to make the endorsement "I agree" on
the copy of the medico-legal report Exhibit
C.W.1/1’; and
(3) that Dr. P. K. Mittal did not tell him on
telephone on the 15th March, 1973 that Dr.
Mrs. L. K. Grewal had shown her inability to
give her opinion regarding the presence of
the smegma on the glans penis of the
accused."
We shall deal seriatim with each one of the aforesaid
portions of the appellant’s statement which in the opinion
of the High Court are the offending portions.
Re. Matter No. 1: Though it cannot be gainsaid that the
appellant was not quite accurate in stating before the High
Court that the case of the accused was not referred to him,
it cannot be said that he intentionally or deliberately made
a false statement in that behalf with
729
a view to shield his own guilt or to help the accused as
observed by the High Court. The words used by the appellant
in answer to the question put to him by the High Court taken
as a whole make it manifest that what the appellant meant to
convey was that the accused was never physically produced
before him. We are fortified in this view by the material on
the record which unmistakably reveals that the police never
caused the appearance of the accused before the appellant at
Ferozepur. In his affidavit dated the 27th August, 1975,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
Harjit Singh, Head Constable, has categorically stated that
it was he who along with Milkhi Ram and Bahadur Singh,
Constables, took the accused on the morning of the 17th
March, 1973 from Abohar to Ferozepur as he had been referred
to the appellant by Dr. P. K. Mittal. He has further
affirmed that on reaching Ferozepur at about 10.00 A.M., he
learnt that the appellant was away on tour; that he waited
for the appellant and it was on his return from tour that he
met him in his office at 6.00 P.M. with the aforesaid letter
of reference given to him by Dr. P. K. Mittal; that at the
time of his meeting the appellant, the accused was in the
custody of the aforesaid two constables in the compound and
he did not take him inside the office of the appellant and
the S.H.O. Darshan Singh was not with him at the aforesaid
time of his interview with the appellant. The statement of
Harjit Singh, Head Constable is fully corroborated by the
following entries in the Roznamcha of the Police Station,
City Abohar:-
"20. Sh. Harjit Singh Arrival/Depar- 17-3-73
H.C. City Abohar ture accused
H.C. himself C. Bahadur Singh 589, Milkhi Ram 378
from P.S. City Abohar proceeded at 7.30 A.M. for
Medical Examination by C.M.O. Ferozepur of Sh. Bhajan
Lal accused u/s 302/376 IPC Case No. 49/73 under the
super vision of Sh. Milkhi Ram.
------------------------------------------------------------
3. Darshan Sing SI Departure of 3At6-20 A.M. Pro
S. 17-3-1973 -ceeded to Feroze
-pur with a Lorry
Vr. No. 126268-60
for enquiry by
SDM Ferozepur.
Arrival Reported back 40
18-3-19 P.M. after
enquiry done by
SDM Ferozepur.
------------------------------------------------------------
730
In face of this strong documentary evidence, it is
difficult for us to agree with the High Court that the
appellant had intentionally made a false statement.
Re: Matter No. 2: There is also no material worth the
name to justify the observations made by the High Court that
the appellant had pressurised Dr. Mrs. L. K. Grewal ’to add
the words "I agree" in the copy of Medico-legal Report
Exhibit C.W. 1/1 after the issue of notice to him.’ There
was, in our opinion, absolutely no reason for the appellant
to feel apprehensive so as to impel him to pressurise Dr.
Mrs. L. K. Grewal to make any addition in Exhibit C.W. 1/1
in face of the aforesaid communication No. 426 dated the
15th March, 1973 which was jointly addressed to the
appellant by Dr. P. K. Mittal and Dr. Mrs. L. K. Grewal. In
the said letter, there is not the slightest indication of
any disagreement or conflict of opinion between Dr. P. K.
Mittal and Dr. Mrs. L. K. Grewal. The fact that there was no
disagreement between the two doctors is further borne out
from the absence of the words "I agree" (purporting to have
been added by Dr. Mrs. L. K. Grewal) in Exhibit C.W. 1/2 as
also from the absence of the following words in Exhibits
C.W. 1/2 and C.W.1/1 which are copies of Exhibit C.W. 1/5:-
"Since I have no experience of conducting the
examination of males in rape cases, I am not familiar
either with the appearance or the smell of smegma.
Therefore, I cannot give any opinion whether the layer
present on the glans penis is smegma or not.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
Sd/-L. K. Grewal
15-3-1973."
In view of the foregoing, it is not understandable how
the question of disagreement between Dr. P. K. Mittal and
Dr. Mrs. L. K. Grewal or of refusal on the part of Dr. Mrs.
L. K. Grewal to give any opinion about smegma cropped up
subsequently when there was not the slightest whisper about
it either in the aforesaid letter dated the 15th March, 1973
jointly addressed by the said two doctors to the appellant
or in Exhibits C.W. 1/1 and C.W. 1/2. It seems that the
question of disagreement between the aforesaid two doctors
and of refusal on the part of Dr. Mrs. L. K. Grewal to give
opinion about smegma were purposely introduced subsequently
by some one other than the appellant with some oblique
motive.
The remark in the above quoted letter dated the 17th
March, 1973 addressed by the appellant to Dr. P. K. Mittal
that the examination of smegma was unnecessary was also not
without significance. It
731
is well known in the medical world that the examination of
smegma loses all importance after 24 hours of the
performance of the sexual intercourse. The following passage
occurring at page 341 in Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and
Toxicology is apposite in this connection:-
"Presence of Smegma as Negativing Rape.-1. In
July 1921, Mt. Ramdevi aged 15 years, made a
report that three young men, viz. Panchu, Dabi and
Jodha had committed rape on her. They were
arrested and sent immediately to Modi for
examination. None of them had any mark of injury
on their genitals or anywhere else on their
bodies. The first two had smegma on the glans
penis covered by the foreskin; this proved that
they could not have had sexual intercourse at
least during the last twenty-four hours. The girl
was also examined and found to have been used to
sexual intercourse, at inasmuch as her hymen had
old lacerations. She had no mark of injury to her
private parts or to any other part of her body.
The men were released.
2. On the 23rd February 1923, a man
complained at the police-station that one Dhani
had committed rape on his daughter. He was
immediately arrested and sent to Modi for medical
examination. He found a uniform layer of smegma
covering the glands penis, gave an opinion that he
could not have had sexual intercourse during the
last twenty four hours. The man was released."
It seems that the attention of the learned judges of
the High Court was not drawn to the above quoted passage for
if it had been so, they would have been spared of trouble of
dwelling on the matter relating to examination of smegma
after two or three days of the occurrence.
Re. Matter No. 3: The observations made and the
conclusions arrived at by the High Court in regard to this
matter are also not warranted by the material on the record.
As already shown, there was no question of inability on the
part of Dr. Mrs.L.K. Grewal to give her opinion regarding
the presence or absence of smegma on the glans penis of the
accused on the 15th March, 1973 when the aforesaid letter of
the even date was written by her to the appellant jointly
with Dr. P. K. Mittal. Accordingly there was hardly any
occasion for Dr. P. K. Mittal to tell the appellant on
telephone on the 15th March, 1973 that Dr. Mrs. L. K. Grewal
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
had shown her inability to give her opinion regarding the
presence of smegma on the glans penis
732
of the accused, or for the appellant to verify the matter
from Dr. Mrs. L. K. Grewal on telephone as suggested by Dr.
P. K. Mittal in his above quoted letter dated the 18th
March, 1973. As observed earlier, the so called refusal on
the part of Dr. Mrs. L. K. Grewal has been introduced by
some interested party with an ulterior motive.
The High Court was also in error in adopting a negative
approach to the question which it was called upon to
determine. Instead of trying to find out whether there was
no prima facie case justifying the issue of notice to the
appellant, it adopted a negative approach and tried to find
out whether there was no prima facie case against the
appellant. This would be clear from the following
observations made by the High Court at page 40 of the Paper
Book:-
"At this stage, from the material which has been
referred to above, it is difficult to hold that there
is no prima facie case for coming to the conclusion
that Dr. Kohli pressurised Dr. Mrs. Grewal to make the
endorsement "I agree" on the copy of the medico-legal
report Exhibit C.D. 1/1."
It is true that what the courts have to see before
issuing the process against the accused is whether there is
evidence in support of the allegations made by the
complainant to justify the initiation of proceedings against
the accused and not whether the evidence is sufficient to
warrant his conviction, but this does not mean that the
courts should not prima facie be of the opinion that there
are sufficient and reasonable grounds for setting the
machinery of criminal law in motion against the accused. The
moment this guiding principle is overlooked, the prosecution
degenerates itself into persecution which often is fraught
with evil consequences. The language in which the above
quoted observations of the High Court about the exercise of
pressure by the appellant on Dr. Mrs. L. K. Grewal are
couched shows that the High Court was itself not prima facie
satisfied about the validity of the action that it was
taking.
All this apart, the impugned order cannot be sustained
for another reason. It is now well settled that prosecution
for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those
cases where it appears to be deliberate and conscious and
the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. It is also
well recognised that there must be a prima facie case of
deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the Court
should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for
the charge. (See Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr. In the
present case, as the examination of smegma lost all
importance after the lapse of 24 hours
733
of the performance of the alleged sexual intercourse as
shown above, the aforesaid statement of the appellant was,
in our judgment, not on a matter of substance and the
appellant does not appear to have made any false statement
with a mala fide intention. In the circumstances, we do not
think that any useful purpose will be served by subjecting
the appellant to a lengthy vexatious and expensive trial
which is not likely to end in his conviction.
For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and set
aside the aforesaid order of the High Court. Before parting
with the case, we would like to make a few observations with
regard to the show cause notice issued to the appellant. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
said notice runs as follows:-
"IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
Court on its own motion
Criminal Misc. No. 1755-M of 1975
Court on its own motion ..Petitioner
Versus
Dr. S. P. Kohli, Civil Surgeon,
Ferozepur ..Respondent
Proceedings to show cause notice taken up by the
Court on its own motion, vide order dated 30-4-1975,
passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. S. Dhillon and Hon’ble
Mr. Justice R. N. Mittal in Criminal Appeal No. 911 of
1974/M. Ref. No. 46 of 1974.
Notice to : Dr. S. P. Kohli, Civil Surgeon,
Ferozepur.
WHILE disposing Criminal Appeal No. 911/74 and M.
Ref. No. 46 of 1974, the above proceedings have been
taken up by this Court on its own motion against you
for making a false statement in this Court. NOTICE is
hereby given to you that the case will be laid before
this Court on 4-7-1975 (Actual date).
You are hereby directed to take the necessary
steps to show cause in person or through counsel as to
why proceedings under section 193 I.P.C. shall not be
initiated against you:
GIVEN under my hand and the seal of the Court,
this 16th day of May, 1975.
By order of the High Court,
Sd/-
Deputy Supdt. Criminal."
734
The notice besides being not happily worded is laconic.
It does not satisfy the essential requirements of law. Nor
does it specify the offending portions in the appellant’s
lengthy statement which in the opinion of the High Court
were false. In cases of this nature, it is highly desirable
and indeed very necessary that the portions of the witness’s
statement in regard to which he has, in the opinion of the
Court, perjured himself, should be specifically set out in
or form annexure to the notice issued to the accused so that
he is in a position to furnish adequate and proper reply in
regard thereto and be able to meet the charge
S.R. Appeal allowed.
735