JUDGMENT
V.G. Sabhahit, J.
1. This appeal by the complainant is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned JMFC, Molakalmuru dated 15-3-2002 in C.C. No. 319/2001 acquitting the respondent of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 182 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The appellant herein filed a private complaint against the respondent alleging that the respondent-accused-Chandranna has filed a false affidavit in O.S. No. 51 / 1998 knowing fully well, that he is not the Secretary on the date of filing the affidavit dated 14-8-1998 and the complainant was declared as Secretary by an order of the District Registrar and wherefore, the respondent-accused has filed a false affidavit in O.S. No. 51/1998 describing himself as a Secretary to the above said Committee and there by committed the offences punishable under Sections 182 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Summons was issued to the accused and his presence was secured. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. On behalf of the complainant, P.W. 1 complainant was examined and Exs. P-l to P-5 were got marked.
5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal procedure Code was recorded and the defence of the accused is one of the denial and he produced 4 documents at the time of his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal-Procedure.
6. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, framed the following points for determination:
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt, that on 14-8-1998 accused filed a false affidavit in O.S. 51/98 on the file of this Court as a Secretary to the Committee, knowingly full well that he was not a Secretary and gave false information to the public servant, thereby accused committed an offence punishable Under Section 182 of IPC?
2. Whether the complainant proves beyond all reasonable doubt, that on the said date, accused filed a false affidavit in O.S. 51 /98 on the file of this Court as a Secretary to the Committee and filed the same before the Court with false claim, thereby accused committed an offence punishable Under Section 209 of IPC?
3. What order?
and answered both the points in the negative and acquitted the accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 182 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal dated 15-3-2002 this appeal is filed by the complainant.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial Court was not justified in acquitting the accused, as the material on record clearly shows that as on the date of filing of the affidavits by respondent-accused on 14-8-1998 and 18-8-1988 as per Exs. P-1 and 2 and the fact that the complainant was declared as Secretary of the said Committee by an order of the District Registrar dated 15-11-1999 and being aggrieved by the same, the respondent and others had filed Writ Petition No. 47173/99 and the said Writ Petition was withdrawn, wherefore the order of the District Registrar had become final. The learned Counsel further submitted that the respondent having fully known that he was not the Secretary of the said Committee, has filed a false affidavit and thereby committed the offences alleged against him in the complaint and wherefore the judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel also submitted that in O.S. No. 46/1998 which has been filed for declaration that the respondent is the Secretary of the said Committee, an application was filed for dismissal of the suit as not maintainable and the suit was dismissed on the said application. Being aggrieved by the same, Miscellaneous appeal was preferred before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Challakere and the appeal was allowed and being aggrieved by the same Miscellaneous Second Appeal No. 76/2004 was filed before this Court and the said appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant has approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 12410/2005. Wherefore, the complainant has proved the commission of offence by the accused.
9. On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that the affidavits are filed by the respondent in the suit O.S. 51 /1998 as second defendant in the said suit and he was described as a Secretary of the Committee and he has filed the said affidavits to that effect and the question as to whether, the complainant is the Secretary or the respondent-accused is the Secretary of the Committee, is not finally decided and the suit O.S. 46/1998 is pending consideration and wherefore the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused and holding that the offences alleged against the accused is not proved.
10. I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
11. Having regard the contentions urged, the point that arises for determination is:
Whether the judgment of acquittal calls for interference in this appeal?
and I answer the point for determination in the negative for the following reasons:
12. It is the case of the complainant that accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 182 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code by filing false affidavit as per Exs. P-l and 2 describing himself as the Secretary of the Rural Education High School Committee (Registered) in Kondlahalli though he knew that he is not the member of the said Committee. Exs. P-1 and 2 would clearly show that the said affidavits are filed in O.S. No. 51/1988 and the said suit was filed by K. G. Parthasarathy against B. Beerappa and T. Revenna and defendant No. 3 Rural High School Committee was represented by its President Channappa and Secretary Chandranna, was impleaded by order dated 8-6-1999 as per the copy of the plaint produced at the time of recording the statement under S- 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in the said suit since the respondent was described as the Secretary of the said Committee, the respondent has filed the affidavit as per Exs. P-l and 2. The complainant Revanna was defendant No. 2 in the said suit and in the said suit he has not taken any contention to the effect that the Committee was not properly represented and the affidavits filed are false and there is no decision on merits in O.S. No. 51/1998 and O.S. 51/1998 was dismissed as withdrawn and the issue in the said suit was about the seniority to officiate as Head Master which vacancy occurred due to retirement of Head Master H. Venugopal on 31-7-1998. There is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the order of District Registrar has been passed declaring the complainant as the Secretary of the said Committee as the said order of the Registrar was passed on 15-11-1999 and Ex. P-3 clearly shows that Writ Petition No. 46173/1999 was filed by the respondent and others being aggrieved by the order dated 15-11-1999 passed by the District Registrar of Societies and wherefore the said order is subsequent to filing of the affidavits Exs. P-l and 2 in O.S. No. 51/1998 as the said affidavits are dated 14-8-1998 and 18-8-1998 respectively, as it is clear from the order passed in the said writ petition that the writ petition was withdrawn as a comprehensive suit O.S. 46/1998 had been filed in the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Molakalmuru and liberty was given to the writ petitioners to pursue the remedy in the said suit and it is also stated that any election that may be held in future will be subject to result of the suit filed by the petitioners in O.S. No. 46/1998.
13. Wherefore, it is clear that on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record adduced by the complainant before the trial Court do not prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 182 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code and the finding arrived at by the trial Court holding that the complainant has failed to prove the offences alleged against the accused and acquitting the accused is justified and the said order does not call for interference in this appeal.
14. Accordingly, I answer the point for determination against the appellant and pass the following order.
15. The criminal appeal is dismissed.
