AIR 1941 BOMBAY 408

Bombay High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Beaumont , C.J. AND Sen , J

(A) Criminal P.C. (5 of 1898) , S.476, S.195, S.164— Witness examined under S.164, resiling from that statement at trial - Subsequent statement if false prosecution is expedient but if statement under S.164 is false prosecution is not expedient. Under S.476, Criminal P.C., the Court must be satisfied that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in S.195, which includes offences under S.193, Penal Code.(Para 408C2) Where therefore a person has resiled in the Sessions trial from his statement under S.164, Criminal P.C., it is absolutely essential that the Court should make up its mind whether it was the statement before the Magistrate under S.164 or the statement subsequently made in Court which was fake. If the statement in Court was false then in the interests of justice there should be a prosecution; but supposing it was the statement under S.164 which was false a prosecution would not be expedient in the interests of justice. No doubt, a man making a statement on oath before a Magistrate under S.164 should speak the truth; but if he does not, the least he can do is to tell the truth when subsequently he goes into the witness box. To prosecute a man who has resiled from a false statement made under S.164 is to encourage him in the belief that it pays to tell a lie....