JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed this amended application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and prayed that an inquiry be initiated against the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, superintendent of Police CBI- SPE, Jaipur and Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, the then SP, CBI (SPE), Jaipur non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in respect of offence committed by them referred to in S. 195(1), Cr.P.C. during proceedings in S.B. ; Civil Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1717/1983 and D.B. Special (Writ) Appeal No. 314/1983, Union of India v. Arjun Singh . 2. The skeletal facts necessary for disposal of this application are that, the petitioner is facing trial at Jaipur, Agra etc. for allegedly defrauding various banks. In Special Case No. 6/1981, State v. Sunil Singh and others , he has been convicted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (for CBI SPE cases), Jaipur, for offences under Sections 468 & 471, IPC. Special Cases Nos. 1 & 2 of 1983 State v. Bhimsen and others , wherein the petitioner is also a co-accused, are pending before the learned Special Judge (CBI cases), Jaipur. These cases are fixed for final arguments for last 4-5 years. The petitioner, who was in the year 1983 lodged in jail filed SB Habeas Corpus Petition No. 1717/83 in this Court challenging his detention on the ground that the Public Prosecutor and the Assistant Public Prosecutors of the CBI, who were prosecuting him in the afore-mentioned cases are directly working under the administrative control of the Superintendent of Police CBI (SPE), that they also took part in the investigation in these cases and as such, their appointments were against the provisions contained in Sections 24 & 25 of the Cr.P.C., and, therefore, prosecution against him in those cases stood vitiated and his detention was illegal. The learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice DL Mehta) by his order dated 28.7.83 observed that it was not denied in the reply filed on behalf of the CBI (SPE) that the PPs/APPs are subordindate to the SP CBI (SPE). He, therefore, directed that the PPs/APPs subordinate to the SP CBI (SPE) shall not he allowed to act as PP/APP. The learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice DL Mehta) by his order dated 28.7.83 observed that it was not denied in the reply filed on behalf of the CBI (SPE) that the PPs/APPs are subordindate to the SP CBI (SPE). He, therefore, directed that the PPs/APPs subordinate to the SP CBI (SPE) shall not he allowed to act as PP/APP. Aggrieved by the said order dated 28.7.83 of the learned SB, the Union of India (Non- petitioner No. 1) filed DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 314/1983, which came to be decided by a learned DB of this Court comprising of Hon'hle Mr. Justice SC Agrawal & Hon'ble Mr. Justice SN Bhargava (as they then were) vide judgment dated 16.2.1984. The learned DB after considering the provisions of Sections 24 & 25 of the Cr.P.C. to relevant case law as also the organisational structure of the CBI in the context of appointment and working PPs/APPs allowed special appeal and set aside the order dated 28.7.83 of the SB and consequently dismissed the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition filed by Arjun Singh. It appears that the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition against the judgment dated 16.2.84 of the DB but the Apex Court dismissed the same. Thus, the DB judgment dated 16.2.84 attained finality. 3. Thereafter the petitioner initially filed these petitions for initiation of contempt proceedings against the non-petitioners and Sarva Shri S.P. Tyagi, the then Advocate for the CBI, D.K. Jain the then Sr. PP for CBI, and Altaf Hussain Sr. PP for CBI. However, on 19.8.96 the petitioner withdrew his prayer for initiating contempt of Court proceedings and asserted that his petition is for seeking relief under Section 340, Cr.P.C. only. He also wanted to suitably amend his petition. He has now filed this amended petition for initiating inquiry under Section 340, Cr.P.C. 4. PP for CBI. However, on 19.8.96 the petitioner withdrew his prayer for initiating contempt of Court proceedings and asserted that his petition is for seeking relief under Section 340, Cr.P.C. only. He also wanted to suitably amend his petition. He has now filed this amended petition for initiating inquiry under Section 340, Cr.P.C. 4. The petitioner has strenuously canvassed that the non- petitioners had made false averments and submitted incorrect affidavits in their reply filed before this Court to the effect that PPs of CBI are not under the control of SP CBI and on that basis, the DB in its judgment dated 16.2.1984 at page 30 wrongly observed that (i) "the PP/APPs in the CBI function under the administrative control of the Legal Adviser, who heads the Legal Division and are not under the administrative and disciplinary control of the SP (SPE) at the local leval" ; (ii) "while considering the provisions contained in Sections 24 & 25 of the New Code, we have already indicated that in view of the position that is occupied by the PP and the nature of the function that have been assigned to him under the new Code, the PP must be able to act impartially and without being influenced by the investigating agency. There is no doubt that the independence and impartially of the PP would be jeoparadised if he is put under the administrative control of a police officer, who is in charge of the investigating agency." He has contended that the non-petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the sole purpose.to defeat justice and influence the DB of this Court by submitting incorrect affidavits and documents. According to him, the case file of the said DB Special Appeal (Writ) is also not traceable in this Court and from this fact it can be safely inferred that the non-petitioners had filed forged documents before the DB. He has submitted that as per Annexure 2 to 8 annexed with this petition, it is fairly projected that the PPs & the APPs are under the administrative control of the SP CBI (SPE). He, has, therefore, prayed that inquiry under Section 340 read with S. 195 Cr.P.C. against the non-petitioners be ordered and that they be prosecuted for filing forged documents and false affidavits before the said DB in those proceedings. 5. The non-petition Nos. He, has, therefore, prayed that inquiry under Section 340 read with S. 195 Cr.P.C. against the non-petitioners be ordered and that they be prosecuted for filing forged documents and false affidavits before the said DB in those proceedings. 5. The non-petition Nos. 1 & 2 in their reply have asserted that this petition filed under Section 340, Cr.P.C. is legally not maintainable as no offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. has been committed by them in relation to those proceedings in the Court. They have categorically denied that they misguided the Court by taking false plea and by filing incorrect affidavits to the effect that the PP/APPs of CBI are functioning under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Legal Adviser and not under the disciplinary control of the Police Officers of the CBI. On the other hand, it was specifically pleaded that the PPs of the CBI are independent and impartial in their working and have been functioning under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Legal Advisor. 5. Shri S.K. Sharma the then SP CBI (SPE) (non-petitioner No. 3) has submitted that he did not file any incorrect or false affidavit and that the petitioner be asked to supply a copy of the affidavit alleged to have been filed by him specifically mentioning therein as to which part of the affidavit was false. 6. We have heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the non-petitioners at length and carefully perused the relevant record. It is an admitted position that the petitioner did neither allege before the SB of this Court nor before the DB which heard the Special Appeal; that the non-petitioners had made wrong averments in their reply and filed false affidavits or forged documents. The SLP filed by the petitioner assailing the judgment dated 16.2.1984 of the DB of this Court was dismissed by the Apex Court. In such circumstances, the judgment dated 16.2.1984 has attained finality long back. Now the petitioner after a long lapse of over 11 years has been made such allegations against the non-petitioners in this petition. He has not even cared to file the copies of those affidavits alleged to have been filed by the non- petitioners falsely. In such circumstances, the judgment dated 16.2.1984 has attained finality long back. Now the petitioner after a long lapse of over 11 years has been made such allegations against the non-petitioners in this petition. He has not even cared to file the copies of those affidavits alleged to have been filed by the non- petitioners falsely. The DB of this Court after discussing the provisions of Sections 24 & 25 of Cr.P.C. and the organisational set up of the CBI in respect of appointment of its PPs has no merits held that the PP/APPS of the CBI are not under administrative and disciplinary control of SP CBI but are under the disciplinary control of the Legal Adviser, who heads the Legal Division of the CBI. The PP/APPs are not police officers and they also dc; not take part in the investigation of the case. The petitioner has miserably failed to point out any material on record to show that the DB judgment dated 16.2.1984 was obtained on the basis of false and incorrect affidavits or that the non-petitioners had entered into a criminal conspiracy. 7. Proceedings under Section 340, Cr.P.C. can only be pressed into service where the alleged perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction for such perjury is reasonably probable or likely. The Apex Court in Chajoo Ram's case ( AIR 1971 SC 1367 ) has held that to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very end. 8. The documents Annexure 2 to 8 were not to existence when the said Special Appeal was heard and the impugned judgment dated 16.2.1984 was delivered. At this stage, the impugned judgment dated 16.2.1984 passed by the DB of this Court can neither be reviewed nor recalled. 8. The documents Annexure 2 to 8 were not to existence when the said Special Appeal was heard and the impugned judgment dated 16.2.1984 was delivered. At this stage, the impugned judgment dated 16.2.1984 passed by the DB of this Court can neither be reviewed nor recalled. In such circumstances, in our considered opinion, there is no material to prima facie show that the non-petitioners had committed any offence referred to in S. 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. in those proceedings and hence it is not at all expedient in the interest of justice to initiate any inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. On the other hand, it appears to us that by filing this petition the petitioner has invented a transparent device to protract the trials of the special cases pending against him in the Court of the Special Judge (CBI Cases), Jaipur by filing this application. 9. The net result of the above discussion is that this petition is frivolous and misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed as Frivolous and Misconceived. *******