{"id":154690,"date":"1971-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971"},"modified":"2018-03-22T05:10:16","modified_gmt":"2018-03-21T23:40:16","slug":"chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971","title":{"rendered":"Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1367, \t\t 1971 SCR 172<\/div>\n
Author: I Dua<\/div>\n
Bench: Dua, I.D.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHAJOO RAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRADHEY SHYAM & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT23\/03\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nBENCH:\nDUA, I.D.\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 1367\t\t  1971 SCR  172\n 1971 SCC  (1) 774\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1973 SC 494\t (14)\n R\t    1978 SC1753\t (16)\n RF\t    1992 SC1701\t (41)\n\n\nACT:\nCode  of  Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898),  ss.  476\t and\n479--Scope  of--Filing\tof false affidavit if  appearing  as\nwitness.\nPractice--Prosecution for perjury--When should be ordered.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nSevreal\t complaints were made to the District Magistrate  by\nthe respondent about the, appellant while he was functioning\nas  a sarpanch.\t As no action was taken on those  complaints\nthe  respondent\t filed\ta writ petition in  the\t High  Court\npraying for a maridamus directing inquiries to be made.\t The\nwrit petition was allowed and an inquiry was directed to  be\nheld.  The inquiry was held by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate\nand  it\t was  held  that  there\t were  only   irregularities\ncommitted  by  the  appellant, that be\tdid  not  abuse\t his\nposition  in  any  way, and that no  action  need  be  taken\nagainst\t him.  In those proceedings the appellant  filed  an\naffidavit  that\t he  had not acted as  Sarpanch\t during\t the\nrelevant  period  but  only looked after  the  work  of\t the\nSarpanch.  The respondent presented an application under  s.\n476,  Cr.   P. C., in the Court of the\tDistrict  Magistrate\npraying\t for the appellant's prosecution under ss. 193,\t 181\nand  182  I.P.C.,  for having  deliberately  filed  a  false\naffidavit.   The  matter  was  inquired\t into  by   District\nMagistrate  and after going through the entire\tmaterial  he\nheld that the case of swearing of a false affidavit was\t not\nmade  out against the appellant.  An appeal to the  Sessions\nCourt  and  a revision to the High Court by  the  respondent\nwere dismissed.\nIn  the\t course of the writ proceedings in  the\t High  Court\nseveral affidavits were filed and the appellant asserted  in\nthose  affidavits also that he had not acted as\t a  Sarpanch\nduring the relevant period.  The respondent again moved\t the\nHigh  Court by filing an application under s. 476,  Cr.\t  P.\nC.,  for  the  appellant's prosecution for  making  a  false\nstatement  in  his affidavit.  A single Judge  of  the\tHigh\nCourt\tordered\t that  a  complaint  be\t made  against\t the\nappellant.   The  matter was taken on appeal to\t a  Division\nBench by the appellant and it was contended that in view  of\ns.  479-A Cr.  P. C., the appellant could not be  prosecuted\nunder s. 476 Cr.  P. C., but the contention was repelled and\nit  was held that a person filing an affidavit could not  be\nconsidered to have appeared as a witness before the Court as\ncontemplated by s. 479-A.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD:In\t s. 479 A(6) it is expressly provided  that  no\nproceedings  shall  be taken under ss. 476 to  479  for\t the\nprosecution  of\t a person for giving  or  fabricating  false\nevidence if in respect of such a person proceedings could be\ntaken under s. 479-A.  But under s. 479-A it is only a\twit-\nness who has appeared before the court that can be proceeded\nagainst.\nIn  the present case, the appellant filed a sworn  affidavit\nbut it was not possible to hold that by doing so he appeared\nas  a witness.\tSince he did not appear as a witness  before\nthe High Court s. 479-A was inapplicable and did not operate\nas a bar to the proceedings under s. 476 Cr.  P. C. [177A-E]\n173\n(2)But there is nothing to show that the explanation given\nby  the\t appellant that he did not act as  Sarpanch  at\t the\nrelevant time but only\ndid his who as a panch, was false. [179B]\nA  prosecution\tfor perjury should be sanctioned  by  courts\nonly in those cases Where' perjury appears to be  deliberate\nand  Conscious and a conviction is reasonable  probabe,\t and\nwhen  it is considered expedient in the interest of  justice\nto  punish  the delinquent and not merely because  there  is\nsome  inaccuracy in the statement which may be\tinnocent  or\nimmaterial.  There must be a prima facie case of  deliberate\nfalsehood  on  a matter substance and the  court  should  be\nsatisfied  that\t there\tis  reasonable\tfoundation  for\t the\ncharge.\t  The  giving of false evidence and the\t filling  of\nfalse  affidavits  is  no  doubt  an  evil  which  must\t  be\neffectively curbed but to start prosecution for\t prejudgment\nto readily and too frequently and without  care and  caution\ndefeats its very purpose.[179E-G]\nIn the\t  present  case,  the  material on  record  Was\t not\nsufficiently adequate\t to  justify the conclusion that  it\nis expedient in the interests of justice to  file\t   a\ncomplaint.  The\t High Court did not give due weight  to\t the\nfollowing  facts:  (a)\tThe appellant was a  Panch  and\t was\n'authorised to act as\t Such  and  his\t explanation\t was\nnot  implausible.(b)  In  the  order  of  the  Disconsidered\ninexpedient  to\t initiate prosecution on  substantially\t the\nsame  charge(c) There was a long lapse of time of more\tthan\n10 year's since the filing of the affidavit and\t       during\nthis time, the appellant must have suffered  both   mentally\nand  financially. (d) In view of the nature of\tthe  alleged\nprejury\t such  a  long\tdelay  also  militates\tagainst\t the\nexpediency of prosecution. [179G-H; 180A-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 195 of
\n1968.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment And\torder  dated
\nMarch 13, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in
\nCriminal No. 175 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
D.   P. Uniyal and S. S. Shukla, for the appellant.
\nB.   N. Sharma, C. P. Lal and N. N. Sharma, for respondent
\nNo.   1.\n<\/p>\n
O. P. Rana, for respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDua, J.-This appeal by special leave is directed against the
\njudgment and order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High
\nCourt dated March 13, 1968 affirming the order of a  learned
\nsingle\tJudge  of that Court directing that a  complaint  be
\nfiled against the appellant for his prosecution for making a
\nfalse  statement in para 10 of his affidavit dated  July  6,
\n1960  to the effect that he had not been acting as  Sarpanch
\ntill December 7, 1957.\n<\/p>\n
The   relevant\t facts\tnecessary  for\t understanding\t the
\ncontroversy   may  now\tbe  briefly  stated.   Chajoo\tRam,
\nappellant, was elected
\n174<\/span>
\nSarpanch” of the Nyaya Panehay of of Risia Bazar.Tehsil Nan-
\npora, District Bharaic’ at the election held for that office
\non  October  29,  1956.\t Radhey Shyam  (respondent  in\tthis
\nCourt)\twho was defeated in that election filed an  election
\npetition  which was dismissed on June 3, 1958.\t During\t the
\ntrial of that petition an injunction was issued\t restraining
\nthe  appellant from functioning as a Sarpanch.\t That  order
\nremained  in  force from December 3, 1956  to  December\t 10,
\n1957.\tAfter  the dismissal of the election  petition,\t the
\nappellant   started   functioning  as\tSarpanch.    Several
\ncomplaints  also seem to have been made by Radhey Shyam\t and
\nsome  others  to the District.\tMagistrate,  alleging  irre-
\ngularities to have been committed by the, appellant.  As  no
\naction\t was  taken  on\t those\tcomplaints   Radhey   Shyam,
\nrespondent, filed a writ petition (W.P. No-. 89 of 1960)  in
\nthe  Allahabad High Court praying for a mandamus’  directing
\nenquiries  into the allegations contained in  his  complaint
\nagainst the appellant.\tThis write petition  was allowed on-
\nSeptember  4,  1961  and  a  writ  of  mandamus\t was  issued
\ndirecting  the District Magistrate  and thee  Sub-Divisional
\nMagistrate to hold an enquiry against the appellant but\t the
\nquestion of determining whether it was in public interest to
\nhold  an  enquiry  was left to those  authorities.   In\t the
\ncourse of the writ proceedings several affidavits were filed
\nin  the\t High  Court by the  contesting\t parties.   We\tare,
\nhowever, only concerned with para 10 of the affidavit  dated
\nJuly 6, 1960 filed by the appellant.  That paragraph reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “That  the  deponent  was\t not  acting  as   a
\n\t      Sarpanch till 7th December, 1957, when he\t was
\n\t      given over charge of the office of Sarpanch by
\n\t      opposite\tparty  No.  4  Chhotey\tLal  Sahayak
\n\t      Sarpanch.\t  Except the cases  mentioned  below
\n\t      none  were  entrusted to the  benches  by\t the
\n\t      deponent\tbut  were entrusted by\tthe  Sahayak
\n\t      Sarpanch\topposite party No. 4 who was  acting
\n\t      in  place of the deponent under the orders  of
\n\t      the  court  after\t the  petitioner  had  filed
\n\t      election petition.  The cases mentioned  below
\n\t      were  dealt  by  the deponent  under  the\t old
\n\t      procedure\t in  the absence of  any  directions
\n\t      issued to him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Then  four cases are mentioned which had\tbeen
\n\t      filed  in November, 1956.\t In order  to  fully
\n\t      appreciate  the contents of this paragraph  it
\n\t      is  necessary to reproduce paras 9 and  10  of
\n\t      Raddey Shyam’s affidavit dated March 28,\t1960
\n\t      to which the appellant’s affidavit dated\tJuly
\n\t      6, 1960 was a reply:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “9.  That the Sarpanch (opposite party No.  3)
\n\t      referred\tmany  cases  to\t the  Special  Bench
\n\t      constituted by him. 21 cases out of the  first
\n\t      list of 22 cases were allotted to this Special
\n\t      Bench  by\t him.  Further out  of\t62  criminal
\n\t      cases  and 35 civil cases instituted.  in\t the
\n\t      year 1956-57 the
\n\t      175<\/span>
\n\t      Bench  consisting of the deponent as  a  Panch
\n\t      (Bench,  No.1) was Allotted only\t16  criminal
\n\t      and  8  civil cases. whereas, it\tshould\thave
\n\t      been allotted 21 criminal and 12 civil cases.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      10.That  in many cases the dependent  was\t not
\n\t      informed of the dates of the hearing fixed  by
\n\t      Sarpanch\t and  many  a  time  he\t could\t not
\n\t      therefore,  present himself in the  Bench\t and
\n\t      the   cases  were\t decided  in  his   absence.
\n\t      Sarpanch\twho was not a member of this  Bench,
\n\t      participated   in\t the  proceedings  of\tthis
\n\t      Bench.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In  reply\t to  Para 9 of\tthis  affidavit\t the
\n\t      appellant had stated in his affidavit of\tJuly
\n\t      6, 1960:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “There  is  no  dispute  with  regard  to\t the
\n\t      procedure laid down in this paragraph.  It is-
\n\t      a new amendment.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      There was a rejoinder affidavit dated July 15,
\n\t      1960  filed by Radhey Shyam in which reply  to
\n\t      Para  10\tof the appellant’s  affidavit  dated
\n\t      July  6 , 1960 is contained in Para 8  and  it
\n\t      reads as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “Regarding  Para\t10-2it is false\t and  denied
\n\t      that Chajoo Ram, did not act as Sarpanch\ttill
\n\t      the  7th December, 1957.\tAs a matter of\tfact
\n\t      he  was  acting  as  Sarpanch  throughout\t  in
\n\t      violation\t of  the stay order  passed  against
\n\t      him.   It\t is  also denied  that\tother  cases
\n\t      except  those mentioned by Chajoo Ram in\tthis
\n\t      Para were not referred to the Benches by\thim.
\n\t      Chajoo  Ram was throughout acting as  Sarpanch
\n\t      and  he  in that capacity\t referred  cases  to
\n\t      benches\taccording   to\this   choice.\t The
\n\t      procedure followed by Sri Chajoo Ram  opposite
\n\t      party no. 3 was in violation of the  procedure
\n\t      laid  down  in the Panchayat Raj Act  and\t the
\n\t      Rules  framed  thereunder.  The  rest  of\t the
\n\t      contents of this Para are denied.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The appellant filed a counter-affidavit dated July 24,\t1960
\nto  this  rejoinder.   As we are  only\tconcerned  with\t the
\ncontents ,of Para 10 in the appellant’s affidavit dated July
\n6,  1960  we need only refer to the relevant  assertions  in
\nthis counter-affidavit.\t In Para I the deponent stated\tthat
\nhe  had\t not been acting as a Sarpanch on June 6,  1957\t and
\nwith regard to annexure 34 it was submitted that the  entire
\ndocument had been written by Shri B. P. Joshi, Mantri  whose
\nduty it was to see that the provisions of the Panchayat\t Raj
\nAct  and Rules and bye-laws made thereunder :and all  orders
\nissued\tor  authorized\tby  the\t Government  or\t  prescribed
\nauthority were complied with by the Gaon Panchayat and Nyaya
\nPanchayat and to bring to their notice any irregularity
\n176<\/span>
\nor  omission  on  their part.  Shri  Chhottey  Lal,  Sahayak
\nSarpanch  had  gone out on June 3, 1957 and  had  asked\t the
\ndeponent to do-ministerial work which he could do under\t the
\nAct. Radhey Shyam, Respondent, filed a further rejoinder  to
\nthis  counter affidavit on the same day viz.  July 24,\t1960
\nbut in this rejoinder nothing new Was Stated on this point.
\nOn December 10, 1962 Rafhey Shyam, Respondent, Moved in\t the
\nHigh  Court  an application under s.476, Cr.  P.C.  for\t the
\nappellant’s prosecution.  The learned single Judge  directed
\nby his order dated January 27, 1964 that a complaint be made
\nagainst the appellant in respect of two counts, one of them,
\nwhich survives for our consideration, being that he had made
\na  false statement in paragraph 10 of. his  affidavit  dated
\nJuly  6, 1960 to the effect that he had not been  acting  as
\nSarpanch  till\tDecember 7, 1957.  On  Chajoo  Ram’s  appeal
\nbefore\ta  Division Bench it was urged on behalf  of  Radhey
\nShyam is a preliminary point that the appeal was  premature.
\nThis  point was referred to a Full Bench which answered\t the
\nreference  negativing the Preliminary objection.   When\t the
\nappeal\tcame  back  to the Division Bench it  was  urged  on
\nbehalf of the\tappellant that in view of the provisions  of
\ns. 479-A, Cr.  P. C. no prosecution could be taken under  s.
\n476  of the Code.  This contention was repelled and  it\t was
\nheld that a person filing an affidavit in court could not be
\nconsidered  to have appeared as a witness before that  court
\nas  contemplated by s. 479-A.  Dealing with the\t merits\t the
\nDivision   Bench  of  the  High\t Court\tobserved  that\t the
\nrespondent  had placed on the record four receipts (nos.  39
\nt0  42)\t and  “a copy of the report supposed  to  have\tbeen
\nsubmitted by the appellant as Sarpanch to the Panchayat\t Raj
\nOfficer” indicating that the appellant had acted as Sarpanch
\nbetween\t  June\t 4  and\t June\t6,1957.\t   The\t appellant’s
\nexplanation, that Chhotey Lal, Sahayak parpanch was on leave
\nfrom  June,  4 to June 11, 1957 and that the  appellant\t had
\nmerely\tworked\tfor  Chhotey  Lal in  those  days,  was\t not
\naccepted  for the reason that this explanation\twas  neither
\nincluded in the affidavit filed by the appellant in reply to
\nthe   application  under  s.  476,  Cr.\t  P.C.\tnor   in   a
\nsupplementary affidavit filed by him in connection with some
\nother  matter.\tThe fact that Radhey Shyam, respondent,\t was
\nprompted  by  considerations of malice in  initiating  these
\nproceedings  was considered to be immaterial.  With  respect
\nto  the second statement, which was also the subject  matter
\nof the learned single Judge’s direction, the Division  Bench
\nheld  that charge to be unsustainable and the order  of\t the
\nsingle Judge directing a complaint to be filed with  respect
\nto  that charge was set aside.\tThe appeal  was\t accordingly
\nallowed\t in part and in regard to para 10 of  the  affidavit
\ndated July 6, 1960 it was dismissed.  It is this order which
\nis assailed before us.\n<\/p>\n
177<\/span><\/p>\n
The  first point which was pressed before us relates to\t the
\neffect of s. 479-A, Cr.\t P.C. This section was added to\t the
\nCode of Criminal Procedure by Act 26 of 1955 with the object
\nof  eradicating\t the  evils of perjury.\t  It  overrides\t the
\nprovisions of ss. 476 to 479.  In sub-s. (6) it is expressly
\nprovided that no proceedings shall be taken under ss. 476 to
\n479  (inclusive) for the prosecution of a person for  giving
\nor fabricating false evidence if in respect of such a person
\nproceedings  may be taken under this section.  The  question
\nto  be seen, however, is if s. 479-A applies to the  present
\ncase.  Sub-section (1) of this section, so, far as relevant,
\nlays  down that not withstanding anything contained  in\t ss.
\n476  to\t 479 (inclusive) when a civil, revenue\tor  criminal
\ncourt is of opinion that any person appearing before it as a
\nwitness- has intentionally given false evidence in any stage
\nof  judicial  proceedings or  has  intentionally  fabricated
\nfalse evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of
\nthe  judicial  proceeding it may, after complying  with\t the
\nother conditions contained in this section, make a complaint
\nin  writing  and  forward the same  to\ta  magistrate.\t The
\ncrucial\t point to be noticed in this section is that  it  is
\nonly a witness who has appeared before the court who can  be
\nproceeded against.  Now, the appellant quite clearly did not
\nappear\tas a witness before the High Court.  He\t undoubtedly
\nfiled sworn affidavit but it is not possible to hold that by
\ndoing  so  he could be said to have appeared as\t a  witness.
\nSection 479-A, Cr.  P. C. is, therefore, inapplicable and it
\ncannot\toperate as a bar to,, the proceedings under s.\t476,
\nCr P.C.\n<\/p>\n
Before\tdealing with the merits of the case we\tconsider  it
\nproper\tto  refer  to the proceedings  before  the  District
\nMagistrate, Bharaic pursuant to the order of the High  Court
\ndated  September 4, 1961.  An enquiry, it appears,  was\t got
\nmade  by the District Magistrate through the  Sub-Divisional
\nMagistrate (Shri Nageshwar Singh).  According to the  report
\nof  the\t Sub-Divisional\t Magistrate dated  January  4,\t1963
\nChajoo Ram, appellant, was only found lo have committed some
\nirregularities\tin  disposing of the cases but\twithout\t any
\ndishonest  motive on his part.\tIn the opinion of  the\tSub-
\nDivisional Magistrate, no action was called for against\t the
\nappellant.   It\t appears  that the  District  Magistrate  on
\nFebruary 17, 1963 desired a, further probe into the  matter.
\nShri K. P. Mathur, S.D.O. after going through the records of
\nthe  Nyaya Panchayat once again endorsed the report  of\t his
\npredecessor observing
\n\t      “I  also agree with Shri Nageshwar Singh\tthat
\n\t      the  allegations had no mala  fide  intention,
\n\t      the  irregularities that. had been found\twere
\n\t      due  to  inexperience  or\t ignorance  and\t are
\n\t      mostly ‘commonly found in all Nyaya Panchayats
\n\t      not  only\t in  this  district  but  in   other
\n\t      districts
\n12-1 S.C. India\/71
\n178<\/span>
\nalso.\tShri Chajoo Ram does not appear to have\t abused\t his
\nposition in any way.”\n<\/p>\n
It appears that in those proceedings also the appellant\t had
\nfiled  an affidavit on December 8, 1961, affirming  that  he
\nhad not acted as Sarpanch for one year and that Chhotey Lal,
\nSahayak\t Sarpanch  looked after the work  of  the,  Sarpanch
\nduring that period.  Radhey Shyam, respondent, presented  an
\napplication  tinder s. 476, Cr.\t P. C. in the court  of\t the
\nDistrict   Magistrate  also  praying  for  the\t appellant’s
\nprosecution-  under ss. 193 \/ 181 \/ 182, I.P.C.\t for  having
\ndeliberately  filed  a\tfalse  affidavit.   The\t matter\t was
\ninquired  into\tby the District Magistrate and\tafter  going
\nthrough the entire material placed before him he came to the
\nconclusion  that  the explanation given by  Chajoo  Ram\t was
\nquite  plausible  and it was “doubtful to deduce”  from\t the
\nmaterial placed before him “whether he had really acted as a
\nSarpanch  of the Nyaya Panchayat or only as a  Panch”.\t The
\nDistrict  Magistrate specifically referred to the  files  of
\nsome  cases on which Radhey Shyam had relied in\t support  of
\nhis allegation that the appellant had acted as Sarpanch\t but
\nthe   District\t Magistrate  was  unable  to   uphold\tthis
\nallegation.   Four receipts nos. 77 and 59 to 61  were\talso
\nrelied upon by Radhey Shyam in support of his allegation but
\nhere  again the District Magistrate was unable to hold\tthat
\nthe  appellant\thad acted as Sarpanch.\tAs a result  of\t the
\npreliminary  enquiry the District Magistrate held  that\t the
\ncase of swearing a false affidavit was not made out  against
\nthe appellant and the notice issued to him was discharged on
\nMay 4, 1964.  Radhey Shyam took the matter on appeal to\t the
\ncourt  of  the\tSessions Judge assailing the  order  of\t the
\nDistrict Magistrate dated, May 4, 1964, but without success.
\nThat  court also came to the conclusion that  the  appellant
\nwas not shown to have acted as Sarpanch during the period in
\nquestion.   The final conclusion of the Sessions  Judge\t was
\nexpressed in these words.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The Court has also to consider whether  after
\n\t      filing  a complaint there is a possibility  of
\n\t      conviction.  The laches pointed out on  behalf
\n\t      of  the appellant committed by Chajju Ram\t can
\n\t      be  explained easily in law courts.   I  agree
\n\t      with  the learned counsel for  the  respondent
\n\t      that the possibility of the conviction of\t the
\n\t      respondent  appears to be quite  remote.\t The
\n\t      learned\t court\t below\t  after\t   carefully
\n\t      considering all the facts and circumstances of
\n\t      the case came to the conclusion that it is not
\n\t      a\t fit  case in which a  complaint  should  be
\n\t      filed,  and  I  agree with this  view  of\t the
\n\t      learned court.  AR the circumstances have been
\n\t      fully explained by Chajju Ram.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We are informed at the bar that a revision to the High Court
\nagainst\t the order of the Sessions Judge was also  dismissed
\nbut that order is not included in the printed record.\n<\/p>\n
179<\/span><\/p>\n
Before\tus  reliance has been placed on four  receipts\tviz.
\nreceipt no. 59 and 60 dated June 4, 1957 for 12 ps. as price
\nof  application form, receipt no. 61 dated June 6,  1957  on
\naccount\t of  price of application form and  receipt  no.  77
\ndated  June  4, 1957 for 53 ps. on account  of\tsummons\t fee
\nwhich  is said to have been received by the  appellant.\t  On
\nthese days, according to the appellant, the Sahayak Sarpanch
\nwas  on\t leave.\t  There\t is nothing  to\t suggest  that\tthis
\nexplanation  is false and we do not think that on the  basis
\nof  these three receipts the appellant can be said  to\thave
\nacted  as  a Sarpanch.\tIt is not shown that  this  was\t the
\nfunction  only\tof  the Sarpanch and a\tPanch  could  in  no
\ncircumstances  sign a receipt.\tThe next document  on  which
\nreliance  is placed is a kind of a report to  the  Panchayat
\nRaj  Officer  dated  June 6, 1957 informing  him  that\tsome
\nPanchas\t had  not attended since the  establishment  of\t the
\nPanchayat.  In this document the appellant’s signatures\t and
\nthe  signatures\t of the Secretary, B.P. Joshi,\tboth  appear
\nbelow\tthe  endorsement  forwarding  this  report  to\t the
\nPanchayat  Inspector for information and  necessary  action.
\nThis  was explained by the appellant in his affidavit  where
\nhe   stated  that  the\tSecretary  had\tinserted  the\tword
\n“Sarpanch”  and on the appellant’s objection to the  use  of
\nthis word, the Secretary bad replied that this was a  formal
\nmatter.\t  From\tthis  document also we do not  think  it  is
\npossible  to  hold  that the appellant intended\t to  act  as
\nSarpanch on June 6. 1957.\n<\/p>\n
The  prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by  courts
\n,only  in  those  cases\t where the  perjury  appears  to  be
\ndeliberate  and conscious and the conviction  is  reasonably
\nprobable  or likely.  No doubt giving of false evidence\t and
\nfiling false affidavit is an evil which must be\t effectively
\ncurbed\twith  a\t strong hand but to  start  prosecution\t for
\nperjury too readily and too frequently with,out due care and
\ncaution\t and on inconclusive and doubtful  material  defeats
\nits very purpose.  Prosecution should be ordered when it  is
\nconsidered  expedient in the interests of justice to  punish
\nthe  delinquent\t and  not  merely  because  there  is\tsome
\ninaccuracy  in\tthe  statement\twhich  may  be\tinnocent  or
\nimmaterial.   There must be prima facie case  of  deliberate
\nfalsehood on a matter ,of substance and the court should  be
\nsatisfied  that\t there\tis  reasonable\tfoundation  for\t the
\ncharge.\t  In the present case we do not think  the  material
\nbrought\t to our notice was sufficiently adequate to  justify
\nthe  conclusion\t that it is expedient in  the  interests  of
\njustice to file a complaint.  The approach of the High Court
\nseems  somewhat\t mechanical  and superficial:  it  does\t not
\nreflect\t the requisite judicial deliberation : it  seems  to
\nhave  ignored  the fact that the appellant was a  Panch\t and
\nauthorized  to\tact  as such and  his  explanation  was\t not
\nimplausible.  The High Court further appears to have  failed
\nto give requisite weight to the
\n180<\/span>
\norder of the District Magistrate which was confirmed. by the
\nSessions  Judge, in which it was’ considered inexpedient  to
\ninitiate  prosecution  on  the\tcharge,\t of  alleged   false
\naffidavit  that\t the  appellant had not\t acted\tas  Sarpanch
\nduring the period of the stay order.  The subject matter  of
\nthe charge before the District Magistrate was  substantially
\nthe same as in the present case.  Lastly, there is also\t the
\nquestion of long lapse of time of more than ten years  since
\nthe  filing of the affidavit which is the subject matter  of
\nthe  charge.  This factor is also not wholly irrelevant\t for
\nconsidering   the  question  of\t expediency  of\t  initiating
\nprosecution for the alleged perjury.  In view of the  nature
\nof  the\t alleged perjury in this case this long\t delay\talso
\nmilitates  against expediency of prosecution.  And  then  by
\nreason\tof the pendency of these proceedings since 1962\t and
\nearlier\t similar proceedings before the District  Magistrate
\nalso  the  appellant must have suffered\t both  mentally\t and
\nfinancially.   In  view of all these  circumstances  we\t are
\nconstrained  to\t allow the appeal and set  aside  the  order
\ndirecting complaint to be filed.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n181<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 1367, 1971 SCR 172 Author: I Dua Bench: Dua, I.D. PETITIONER: CHAJOO RAM Vs. RESPONDENT: RADHEY SHYAM & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT23\/03\/1971 BENCH: DUA, I.D. BENCH: DUA, I.D. SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN CITATION: 1971 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1971-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-21T23:40:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-21T23:40:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971\"},\"wordCount\":3125,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971\",\"name\":\"Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-21T23:40:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-21T23:40:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971","datePublished":"1971-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-21T23:40:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971"},"wordCount":3125,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971","name":"Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-21T23:40:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chajoo-ram-vs-radhey-shyam-anr-on-23-march-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154690","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}